Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills,. originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Poole Harbour Bill [Lords].
Ipswich Corporation Bill [Lords].
Hoylake and West Kirby Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Scarborough Corporation Bill [Lords].
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords](Standing Orders applicable there to, complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords
and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

London, Midland and Scottish Railway (New Capital) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading referred till Thursday.

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Minister of Transport under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Liverpool Corporation Tramways and Sheffield Corporation Tramways," presented by Colonel ASHLEY: read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.[Bill 168.]

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS(No. 1) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Cattewater, Findochty, Llanelly, and Port-nan-Long," presented by Colonel ASHLEY; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed, [Bill 169]

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

GLASSWARE.

Mr. JOHN BECKETT: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received an application for safeguarding from the glassware industry; if this application is to be placed before a committee; and, if not, what are the grounds of refusal?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and others on the 17th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

LACE

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade to state when the Report of the Committee on the Lace Industry will be presented?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The Report was presented on Thursday, the 30th April.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: If the Report be favourable, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that action shall be taken immediately?

Mr. SPEAKER: That should be a separate question.

Captain BENN: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has come to any decision on the findings of the lace inquiry; and whether it is intended to introduce a supplementary Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means for embodiment in the Finance Bill?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE -LISTER: The Report of the Committee is under consideration.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when a decision will be announced '?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FOREIGN WIRELESS VALVES.

Colonel DAY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that large quantities of foreign wireless valves are being imported into this country, and that some of these valves are an infringement upon patent rights held by British manufacturers; that recently several retailers in a small way of business have received writs, issue by the British Thomson-Houston Manufacturing Company, Limited, who allege infringement of their patent rights; and whether, in view of the hardship inflicted upon these small traders, he is prepared to cause importers of such goods into this country to make declaration to the effect that the said goods do not infringe patent rights held by British manufacturers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that wireless valves are being im
ported into the United Kingdom, and I understand that during the last 12 months legal proceedings have been taken by the British Thomson Houston Company against six infringers, four of whom are importers; all these firms are wholesalers, but two do a retail business also. In each case the proceedings were successful. I have no power to require importers of wireless valves to make any such declaration as that suggested in the last part of the question.

GERMANY (INTERNAL AND EXPORT TRADE).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount and value of Germany's internal and export trade in 1913-14 and at the present time?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to his question relating to the internal and export trade of the chief industrial countries of Europe.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were no figures given in that reply? Is it not possible to give the limited information asked for in this question?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yesterday my hon. Friend referred the hon. Member to the very full tables prepared by the League of Nations. These are the only available complete tables that exist, and they are more complete than the ones we publish every three months. I cannot give the information asked for in this question, because the League of Nations' figures do not give the volume but only the—

Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand that the Government have no information of this kind, and have to refer to the League of Nations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: No. We have a good deal of information, but I thought it would be waste of money if we did not make use of the fullest figures supplied by the League of Nations.

FURS (IMPORTS).

Lieut.Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the total imports last year of furs,natural and artificial, respectively?

Sir P.CUNLIFFE LISTER: The declared value of furs, fur skins, undressed and dressed (not leather), together with manufactures of skins and furs (including fur clothing) imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1924, amounted to £13,324,412.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY (KILOWATT HOURS)

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many kilowatt hours of electricity were developed in 1913 in this country, the United States of America, Germany, Belgium, and Japan, respectively; and what are the corresponding figures for the years 1923 and 1924?

Sir P.CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is a somewhat long one, and my hon. Friend will perhaps not object to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRICES (GROCERS' PROPRIETARY ARTICLES ASSOCIATION).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the formation of the Grocers' Proprietary Articles Associaiton for the purpose of fixing minimum prices and controlling supplies of important food commodities; and whether he has requested the Royal Commission on Food Prices to take evidence from the association?

Sir P.CUNLIFFELISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It would, I think, be preferable to consider the recommendations put forward by the Commission in its first Report before suggesting further specific investigations.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH TIZADE.

Mr. HANNON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total imports from and exports to Russia during the year 1924; what classes of goods were, during that period, exported from this country under special licence; and for what classes of goods covered by such licences has it been decided to withdraw special facilities?

Sir P.CUNLIFFELISTER: During 1924 the value of the imports from Russia into Great Britain and Northern Ireland was almost exactly 20 million pounds. The value of the exports to Russia of the produce and manufactures of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was 23,820,000, and of our re exports of foreign and Empire merchandise, £7,350,000. Arms and ammunition and opium and other dangerous drugs were exported to Russia during 1924 under special licence. Towards the end of that year the issue of licences for the export of arms and ammunition to Russia was discontinued.

Mr.W.THORNE: Can the right hon.Gentleman say from memory whether this is an increase or a decrease on previous years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No; I am afraid I cannot.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any statistics to show the extent of Russian purchases in this country during the first quarter of 1925; and whether he can give our purchases from Russia in the same period?

Sir P.CUNLIFFE LISTER: The declared value of the trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with Russia during the first quarter of 1925 was as follows:

£


Imports registered as consigned from Russia
3,245,9913


Exports registered as consigned to Russia:



United Kingdom produce and manufactures
1,502,393


Foreign and Colonial merchandise
3,097,418

PASSPORTS.

Mr.LANSBURY: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many passports during the past 12 months were granted to British subjects desirous of travelling to Russia by the Foreign Office; and how many visas were granted by the British representatives in Russia to Russian citizens desirous of coming to Great Britain?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): Passports valid for travelling in Soviet Russia have been freely issued to British subjects who desired
them. No special record is kept of endorsements for Soviet Russia, and the exact number issued cannot be ascertained without prolonged research. It, of course, does not follow that a Russian visa is always accorded where we have issued a passport, and I cannot say in how many cases the visa has been refused. On the second part of the question, I have no information, but I am ready to make enquiries of His Majesty's Charged'Affaires at Moscow if I am convinced that the information is of any public importance.

Oral Answers to Questions — FROZEN MEAT (FRAUD LOSSES).

Mr. BRIANT: asked the President of the Board of Trade since, as it stated in the balance sheet of the Food Department for 1924, a sum of £171,000 is entered as a loss through fraud in connection with the purchase of frozen meat, what prosecutions, if any, were taken; and with what result?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: Criminal proceedings were instituted against the managing director and the secretary of the defaulting company as well as against another director who was thought to be mainly responsible for the default. The case was tried at the Central Criminal Court in April, 1922. The managing director and the secretary were acquitted: the other director was convicted and sentenced to eighteen months in the Second Division.

Captain GARRO-JONES: What was the name of the other person?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The one who went to prison? W. H. Cuffin.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMPANIES (DIVIDENDS).

Mr. JOHN GUEST: asked the President of the Board of Trade the average dividend paid by the industrial insurance companies of this country for each of the six years prior to the War, and also the average dividend paid by them for each of the six years since the War; and if he can state the amounts added to reserve funds during the separate periods?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr.Guinness): The figures are being prepared and I will communi
cate them to the hon. Member and circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as they are ready.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how these companies furnished moneys for the Government during the War?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SMALL-ARMS AMMUNITION, WOOLWICH ARSENAL (COST).

Mr. SNELL: asked the Secretary of State for War the average cost of standard small-arms ammunition produced in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, as compared with the prices paid to private firms producing the same class of stores?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): It is not in the public interest to state the prices paid to private firms.

Mr. SNELL: Is the information not available to the House of Commons?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid I must repeat that it is not in the public interest to give the information.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what check if any, there is on these contracts?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We take great care about that in the Department.

Mr.W.THORNE: Is it passible for the House or the general public to gauge the difference between the cost of private enterprise and the cost of work done in the Arsenal, if we have not the information?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That would take a longer answer than I can give at Question Time. If the hon. Member will take the opportunity, I shall he glad to argue it at any other time.

RECRUITS.

Sir W. de FRECE: asked the Secretary of State for War if, taking the number of recruits for last year, he will state the total enlisted in each British and Welsh county; and whether these total are in any way related to the existing measure of unemployment in such counties?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number of recruits enlisted in each of the Recruiting Zones, which correspond closely to county areas, is shown in Table 1 of Part III of the General Annual Report on the British Army for the year ending 30th September, 1924 (Cmd. 2342). I have no certain information which would enable me to reply to the second part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING FACTORY, CATHCART).

Captain BENN: asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is proposed to close the Albert Training Factory for disabled service men at Cathcart; whether, in this case, the men in training there will be drafted to similar factories in England; and whether, in view of the fact that this is the only training factory in Scotland, and that there are nearly 1,000 men awaiting training, it 'is possible to retain it in some form?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr.Betterton): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, given yesterday to the hon. Member for Lanark, North, on this subject. As regards the figure quoted in the last part of the question, I can only say that our waiting list for the whole of Scotland amounted, on 28th April, to 38 only.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HEBRIDEAN STEAMER SERVICES.

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the s.s. "Iona," sailing from Glasgow to Ardrishaig, broke down on Wednesday, 29th April.last, and that a tug had to be sent to take her to Greenock; whether this ship was overhauled before being put upon this route; and what steps he is prepared to take to secure a more efficient transport service to the Western Highlands?

The SECRETARYfor SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am informed that the facts are as stated in the question, and that the vessel was overhauled and surveyed three weeks before the date of
the accident. Another vessel was immediately substituted on this service. As regards the last part 'of the question, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and I are, as I stated in my reply last week, at present examining generally the question of the Hebridean steamer services, including representations which have been made as to the vessels employed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleague at the Board of Trade regarding the inspection of these ships, as they have now reached such an age that closer inspection is required than formerly?

Sir J.GILMOUR: I have already done so.

HOUSING, DIRELION, NORTH BERWICK.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware of the lack of proper sanitary arrangements in a large number of the houses in Direlton, near North Berwick; that in many cases there is neither proper drainage from the houses nor water in the houses; that some of the two-roomed houses are going to have still further curtailed accommodation, by space in one of the rooms being used for building a water-closet; and that only one water-closet is being built for each two houses in the case inquired about; and what action does he propose with a view to bringing the sanitary arrangements of the district up to date and the enforcing of sanitary conveniences without curtailing the use of the present living room?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I have a report from the sanitary inspector of the district, dated the 2nd instant, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. I am satisfied from the report that reasonable steps are being taken by the local authority to secure the introduction of modern sanitary conveniences into the houses still without these. In addition, between 300 and 400 new houses are being constructed in the district., causing a shortage of labour which retards the progress of schemes of improvement.

Mr.WESTWOOD: Is it not a fact that in some of these houses, where they have taken accommodation off for the purpose
of putting in water-closets, there is plenty of available room outside for the building of these places rather than taking away from the limited accommodation available in the houses?

Captain ELLIOT: We have a special report from the sanitary inspector. Perhaps it would be convenient if the hon. Member would await a copy of that report.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

FATAL ACCIDENT, WALLSEND.

Colonel DAY: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at a recent inquest upon Thomas Phillips, a Wallsend collier, who was killed by a fall of stone whilst at his work, it was stated that this accident could have been averted if the working place had been timbered according to regulations; and, seeing that the colliery official responsible was censured by the jury, is he prepared to see that in all collieries in this country adequate precautions are taken for the protection of the lives of those employed?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): I am aware of the circumstances of this regrettable accident, and I agree that it would not have occurred it the timbering rules had been carried out. It is already the constant endeavour of the inspectors of mines to prevent disregard of these rules. but the matter is one which is very largely in the hands of the workmen and the officials supervising them.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS MORGAN: Will the hon. and gallant Member make representations with a view to changing the law, so as to allow the workmen's representatives to prosecute, as well as the Mines Department, in cases of this kind?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I think the hon. and gallant Member is not aware of the circumstances in this case. There is no need for prosecution.

Low TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION PLANTS.

Mr. PALING: asked the Secretary for Mines how many low temperature coal carbonisation plants are operating in Great Britain; how many tons of coal are being used daily for such purposes; and
how many of such plants have proved to be a commercial success?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The development of these processes on a commercial scale is still mainly in the experimental stage, and I am not able to give any exact figures of the kind for which the hon. Member asks.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, BAILDON.

Mr. MACKINDER: asked the Minister of Transport if he is any nearer an agreement whereby the Bradford Corporation may supply the Baildon District Council with electricity; and, if agreement has not been reached, what. is the obstacle?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT(Colonel W. Ashley): The supply of electricity in Baildon by the Corporation of Bradford is dependent on the terms of an agreement between the Corporation of Bradford and the Yorkshire Electric Power Company. At present one point of difference between the parties is outstanding. The Electricity Commissioners are endeavouring to get the parties to come to terms.

Mr. MACKINDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that, unless they do come to terms, he will settle terms for them?

ColonelASHLEY: I shall see if anything can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

NORTH LONDON (TRAFIC ORDER).

Mr.ROBERTMORRISON: 22
asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he is aware of the difficulty and delay already caused to the inhabitants of North London in getting to and from their employment; and, in view of the restrictions placed by the new Traffic Order upon all main thoroughfares leading northwards from Finsbury Park, what steps he proposes to take to meet the increased difficulty and delay which will be caused to the travelling public in these areas;
(2) in view of the fact that the list of restricted roads issued by the Ministry under the London Traffic Act in February last included Seven Sisters Road (Fonthill Road to Finsbury Park Gates), that an appeal was lodged and upheld against this restriction, and that as a consequence
this thoroughfare was deleted from the list, if he will explain what are the altered conditions which have caused it to be again scheduled for restriction.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware of the difficulty and delay experienced by the inhabitants of North London in getting to and from their employment, and I have asked the London Traffic Advisory Committee to inquire into the question of travelling facilities northwards from Finsbury Park. No Order has yet been made declaring any part of Seven Sisters Road or any thoroughfares northwards from Finsbury Park to be restricted streets under Section 7 of the London Traffic Act. This matter is, however, being considered by the Advisory Committee, to whom I am sending a copy of the hon. Member's questions and this reply.

Mr. MORRISON: Will the right. hon. Gentleman bring to the notice of the Advisory Committee the undesirability of placing any further restrictions upon main thoroughfares in North London until the Committee which he has appointed has held an inquiry?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will consider that.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Committee to issue a report?

Colonel ASHLEY: It must be some time. Not only has the London Traffic Advisory Committee to investigate this very important subject, but it has also to ascertain the Eastern and the South-Eastern position. They are all interdependent and it must take some time.

Mr.HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet prevailed on the Committee to hear the interests concerned on both sides in this matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: There is no necessity to prevail upon them. They are quite willing to hear any relevant evidence, that may be forthcoming.

OMNIBUSES (FIRST AID OUTFITS).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the numerous accidents occurring to motor omnibuses, he will consider whether regulations should be made that a first-aid outfit should always be carried?

Colonel ASHLEY: This matter has already been considered by the Departmental Committee who, I understand, are not satisfied that the provision of a first aid outfit on motor omnibuses is of sufficient importance to warrant a special regulation.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will mean the saving of life in the case of many accidents?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think that is a mistaken view of the case, and that at the present moment I should be ill-advised to insist on an outfit being carried on omnibuses.

CHISWICK HOUNSLOW ROAD.

Captain EDEN: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a portion of the new great west road between Chiswick and Hounslow is now closed for repairs; and how many months have elapsed since this portion of the road was first opened to the public?

Colonel ASHLEY: Parts of the new great west road are temporarily closed in order to facilitate the finishing process, in anticipation of the opening of the entire length of the highway by His Majesty the King on the 30th of this month. At the Chiswick end of the road temporary access was first given to the public in June last.

Captain EDEN: Are we to understand from that that access was given before the road was finished?

Colonel ASHLEY: Access was given on the part of the road already finished in order that increased facilities might be afforded. That has now been closed temporarily in order that the finishing process may be completed, and the whole road will be opened on the 30th of this month.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SAFETY DEVICES).

Lieut.CommanderKENWORTHY: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any experiment has taken place with a view to safety devices in front of motor vehicles to prevent accidents to pedestrians; what has been the result of such experiment; and whether he has considered or will consider the fitting of such safety devices, if practicable, to all new motor vehicles being made compulsory?

Colonel ASHLEY: Many devices of the nature indicated in the hon. and gallant Member's question have been tested practically by or an behalf of my Department. I am not satisfied that any device is yet available which would prove of material assistance in avoiding accidents. On the information before me, I am not prepared to take steps to make compulsory the fitting of devices of this type

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If any suitable device be invented, has the right hon. Gentleman power to make it compulsory for new vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think that I should require notice of that question, but on the spur of the moment I should say not.

MOTOR HEADLIGHTS.

Mr. HANNON: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has had under consideration in his Department the question of introducing regulations to control motor headlights; and whether he can give any indication as to the date on which such regulations will come in force?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 29th April to the hon. Member for the Duddeston Division of Birmingham, of which I am sending him a copy.

RURAL ROADS.

Mr. HURD: asked the Minister of Transport why his Department has failed to carry out the decision of the House of Commons of 27th February, 1923, for which eight of the members of the present Government voted, to the effect that inasmuch as practically all rural roads are now used by motor vehicles grants from the Motor Road Fund should be allotted in respect of all such motor-used roads, whether classified or unclassified; and whether the Ministry will now observe this instruction?

Colonel ASHLEY: The extent of the assistance which can be rendered by way of grants to local authorities towards the cost of their highway expenditure, is limited by the amount of revenue accruing to the Road Fund from the taxation of road vehicles. Since 1st April, 1923, sums amounting to £5,000,000 have been made available from the Road Fund for the improvement of important roads in rural areas, including many unclassified roads.

Mr. HURD: In view of the rapid increase of this Fund will the right hon. Gentleman soon be able to carry out the decision of the House of Commons?

Colonel ASHLEY: In my opinion the spirit of that decision has already been carried into effect, in view of the fact that this £5,000,000 has been made available.

Mr. W. THORNE: Have the local authorities no power to decide which way the vehicles shall go?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that that question arises

LONDON STREET TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

Mr. ERSKINE: 29 and 30.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he is aware of the increasing congestion of traffic at the approaches to Victoria Station; and whether he has any effective remedy to apply, in view of the danger to foot passengers and general inconvenience to the public;
(2) whether he can state what remedial measures have been taken or are likely to be taken to deal with the congestion and traffic blocks in the main thoroughfares of London?

Colonel ASHLEY: Remedial measures for the relief of traffic congestion in the neighbourhood of Victoria Station and in certain main thoroughfares in London are under consideration by the London Traffic Advisory Committee; before making any announcement in the matter, I must await their recommendations.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Have the Treasury sanctioned any scheme for underground roads in London?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that that arises out of this particular question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

HOURS OF OPENING.

Major G. DAVIES: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the great inconvenience caused to the business community in many towns and villages by the present hour at which post offices are opened in the morning, he can see his way to arrange for them to open at 8 a.m. instead of at 9 a.m. as at present?

The Postmaster-General (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Applications for the earlier opening of post offices which now open at 9 a.m. have been very few, and I do not think that any general change is called for. I shall be glad to consider any individual cases which my hon. and gallant Friend may have in mind, where substantial cause can be shown.

Mr. MACOMISTEN: Are not the post offices open at 8'o clock? Is it not simply that the clocks are wrong?

TELEPHONES (AUTOMATIC EXCHANGES).

Mr. HANNON: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General in which districts the automatic telephone exchanges have been installed; and whether he can indicate th approximate date of the installation of such exchanges in the London area?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the automatic exchanges, 26 in number, which have already been opened. The introduction of automatic working in the London area is necessarily a lengthy and gradual operation. Unless unforeseen difficulties arise, three or four automatic exchanges should be opened in London during 1927.

Following is the list referred to:

Accrington.
Blackburn.
Blockley (Worcestershire). Chepstow.
Darlington.
Dudley.
Dundee.
Broughty Ferry.
Epsom.
Fleetwood.
Grimsby.
Hadleigh (Essex).
Haseley Knob (Warwickshire). Hereford.
Hurley (Berkshire).
Leeds.
Marton (Yorkshire).
Newport (Monmouthshire). Paisley.
Portsmouth.
Southampton.
Ramsey (Huntingdonshire). Stockport.
Swansea.
Sketty.
York.

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE FACILITIES, LINDSEY, LINCOLNSHIRE

Mr. DEAN(for Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE): asked the Postmaster-General how many village post offices in the Parts of Lindsey, Lincolnshire, are provided with telegraph or telephone facilities; how many are not so provided; and what steps are being taken to increase the existing facilities?

Sir W.MITCHELL-THOMSON: Of the 263 rural sub-offices in the Parts of Lindsey, 118 have both telegraph and telephone facilities, seven have telegraph, and eight telephone facilities only. This leaves 130 post offices unprovided with telegraphic or telephonic communication, but in some of these villages telegraph business is conducted at the local railway station, and many others are within a reasonable distance of one or other of the existing telegraph or telephone offices. Telegraph and telephone facilities are extended in the Parts of Lindsey. as elsewhere, when the necessary conditions are fulfilled. At the present time the question of extension is being considered in the case of 10 villages in the district.

EMPLOYES WAR SERVICE (CIVIL PAY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY(for Major HORE-BELISHA): asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the Royal Engineers postal section and certain other Territorial units of His Majesty's Forces were allowed their full civil pay during the War without deductions in respect of Army pay and allowances, it is proposed, as a matter of equity, to put other postal employes whose services during the War were equally efficient, upon the same footing, and particularly the married men who suffered deductions of separation and other allowances?

Sir W.MITCHELL-THOMSON: The reply is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Lieut.ColonelACLANDTROYTE: 35.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in cases where men are unable to attend an appeal tribunal on account of illness, although their evidence is taken at their
houses by a member of the appeal tribunal and a representative of the British Legion, it would be in accordance with the regulations for a decision to be arrived at by another tribunal at which neither of these gentlemen was present?

Colonel GIBBS (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to answer this question. The practice of the tribunals in cases where an appellant is unable to attend is governed by Rules 31 and 32 of the Statutory Rules and Orders made for the Pensions Appeal Tribunals, a copy of which I am forwarding to my hon. Friend. Where possible, the visit is performed by a member of the court which will actually decide the appeal. In a few cases, however, it is not possible to arrange this, particularly in cases under Rule 32 where a court moves to another centre immediately after hearing the next-of-kin. In every case there is a written report of the visit,which is laid before the tribunal. The appellant may nominate any person he wishes to appear before the court when his case is finally decided. Members of the tribunal have been instructed to ascertain in every case whether the appellant wishes to nominate a representative and to notify any such representative of the time and place of hearing.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are cases on record in which individuals who happen to be in a sanatorium or similar institution cannot pay a representative to represent them at the appeal tribunal and the decision is given in their absence? In these cases does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that an appellant should be permitted a real representative?

Colonel GIBBS: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put. down a question?

ADVISORY COUNCILS.

Colonel DAY: 36.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, as the period for which representatives of local pensions committee were appointed members of advisory councils of the Pensions Ministry expires next month, local committees will be afforded opportunities similar to those of last year for the purpose of nominating their representatives on these councils?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second, that having regard to the short period for which these councils have been working, my right hon. Friend proposes to reappoint the existing members for a further period of one year

WIDOWS PENSIONS

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY(forMajorHORE-BEL1SHA): asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the widows of naval ratings, of soldiers, and of airmen, do not get pensions, whereas in certain cases the widows of officers do; and whether he will refer this matter to the Co-ordinating Committee which is at present investigating matters affecting the three Services with a view to the granting of pansions to widows of Navy ratings, soldiers, and 'airmen?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Regulations already provide for the issue of pensions to the widows of naval ratings, soldiers, and airmen whose death is directly attributable to service. Provision for other cases will be included in the new Widows' Pensions Bill.

SEPARATION ALLOWANCE.

Lieut.CommanderKENWORTHY(for Major HORE-BELISHA): 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the maximum age to which separation allowance is made in respect of the children of naval ratings and non-commissioned ranks in the Army and Air Force is 14 years: and whether, seeing that many service men are anxious to give their children the benefit of a higher grade education, particularly when they have qualified for it., he will refer this matter to the Co-ordinating Committee which is investigating matters affecting the services, with a view to raising the grant in respect of these children up to the level of 16 or 17 years?

Mr. GUINNESS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The practice in the three Services is on a common basis, and there is no occasion, therefore, to refer this matter to the Co-ordinating Committee.

Lieut.CommanderKENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that where a service man is willing to keep his child at school to the age of 16 the authorities might extend some assistance to him?

Mr.GUINNESS: It is difficult to see why any such concession should be extended to the fighting services rather than to industry generally. I do not see that a service of this kind can be looked upon from any but an educational standpoint, and, therefore, it is in no sense suitable for reference to the Coordinating Committee.

Lieut.CommanderKENWORTHY:: Why does the right hon. Gentleman compare the case of the fighting services to the case of industrial workers? Does he not know that the separation allowance is given because of the nature of the service, and will he look into the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET PROPOSALS.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Sir W. de FRECE: 40.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to ask for legislative sanction for the new Imperial preference proposals?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Legislative sanction will be given to the new preference proposals in the Finance Bill of the present year.

Captain BENN: Will the Bill be so drafted as to permit those who oppose these preferences to propose an effective Amendment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot anticipate the publication of the text of the Bill.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not well aware that there are some Amendments which cannot be proposed by private Members

INCOME TAX.

SirLESLIE SCOTT: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much sacrifice of revenue in the current year would be involved by an abatement of Income Tax to the extent of one-half the standard rate upon such part of the profits of companies registered under the
Companies Acts as is put to reserve and not distributed in dividend, firstly, if the relief were extended to all such companies or, secondly, if the relief were limited to companies engaged in manufacture, construction, mining, and shipping, with a proviso in each case that if such moneys were not used for the renewal of plant or otherwise for the
development of the business, but taken from reserve and distributed amongst shareholders either in cash or bonus shares, tax should forthwith become payable at the same rate as if the profits had been distributed in the first instance and not put to reserve?

Mr. CHURCHILL: On the limited information available I estimate that the cost of reducing the Income Tax to half the proposed standard rate of 4s. on the profits of all companies (including statutory and chartered companies) put to reserve for the renewal and the development of the business, would be, roughly,£23,000,000. If the concession were restricted to companies engaged in manufacture, construction, mining or shipping, the estimated cost would be about £14,000,000.

Sir L. SCOTT: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinguish between limited liability companies registered under the Companies Acts and chartered companies, so that the House may know the expense that would be involved in regard to the limited liability companies only, engaged in the four subjects of production mentioned in the question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it highly probable that I could distinguish between them, but I could not do so in answer to a supplementary question.

SirL. SCOTT: I understand that. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be in a position to let the House have information in approximate time on that head, before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If my hon. and learned Friend will put a question on the Paper, I will see what information can be obtained.

Sir L. SCOTT: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the incomes of companies are subject to Income Tax in France, Holland, and the United States; and whether tax is levied upon such portion of the companies' income as is distributed amongst shareholders?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My information is to the following effect. In France, companies are subject to the schedular Income Tax on business profits on the whole of their profits. Dividends distributed are also subject, in the hands of the individual (a) to a schedular tax on income from securities, etc., and (b) as part of the individual's total income, to the general Income Tax. In Holland, dividends from companies are subject, in the hands of individuals, to the general Income Tax levied on the total income. In addition, companies are liable to a dividend tax, which is based upon the amount of dividends distributed. In the United States, individuals are liable to a normal tax at the rate of 6 per cent., subject to certain reliefs, and, in addition, when the total income exceeds $10,000, to graduated surtaxes. Companies are subject to a normal tax, at the rate of 12½ per cent., or 6½per cent. in excess of that levied upon individuals. In addition, companies are subject to a Capital Stock Tax, at the rate of one-tenth of one per cent. on the capital value of their stocks it excess of $5,000.

Mr. COMPTON: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the officials of the Board of Inland Revenue in levying Income Tax on thrift funds and holiday savings clubs; whether such action has his consent or authority and, if not, will he take steps to see that a stop is put to this practice?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no exemption from Income Tax in favour of thrift funds and holiday clubs; but where these funds or clubs are organised for the benefit of persons of small income, the Inland Revenue authorities allow a special arrangement under which the liability of the fund to tax in respect of interest and other income is restricted to that part of the income that is paid to members sufficiently wealthy to be liable to tax. Inquiries by the authorities in regard to such funds are mainly directed to secure that the relief from tax under this arrangement should he duly given.

FURS. FEATHERS And PRECIOUS STONES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered putting a tax on the import of furs, natural and artificial, feathers, natural and artificial, and
precious stones into this country; and what are the difficulties in the way or such a tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In reply to this question, I can only say that in framing the Budget I followed the usual procedure of examining in all their aspects a great number of proposals for both the reduction and imposition of taxation, and that the results of my examination, so far as the present year is concerned, have been placed before the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year furs and diamonds alone were imported to the total of over £20,000,000 Why has the right hon. Gentleman neglected this source of revenue? Are these not luxuries?

Sir H.CROFT: Has my right hon. Friend given serious attention to this question, coming from the Liberal party, as one which might provide additional revenue?

Mr.CHURCHILL: I think I have got quite enough Clauses and provisions in the Finance Bill of this year to satisfy us for this year, but I am quite ready to continue my search in future, and leave no fitting subject for taxation unexplored.

Captain BENN: Are we to gather from the answer that the policy of the Government is a progressive series of increased taxes?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. But our policy is certainly to examine with an open mind the possibility of raising a certain portion of our revenue from subjects of luxury consumption, and thereby to relieve the very heavy burdens on other taxpayers.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it not a fact that a tax such as is proposed would seriously prejudice the friendly relations supposed to exist between this Government and the Soviets?

SILK (IMPORTS).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate for the latest year available of the number of lbs. weight of silk imported into this country; what is the similar figure for the import of artificial silk and what is the estimate of the number of lbs. weight of artificial silk manufactured in this country annually?

Sir P. CUN LIFFE- LISTER: I have been asked to reply. The answer contains a number of figures, and, with the permission of the hon. Member, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Following is the answer:

The quantities and values of silk, raw or partly manufactured, and of artificial silk, registered as imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during 1924, were as follow:

—
—
Value.


Natural silk:
lbs.
£


Raw
808,503
1,174,300


Thrown
28,765
48,135


Knubs and waste
4,088,000
628,534


Noils
344,848
18,763


Yarn spun
684,815
445,672


Artificial silk:




Yarn threads and filaments.
10,249,348
3,271,295


Waste
276,715
19,061

The weight of the tissues and other manufactures of silk or of artificial silk imported is not recorded. The values of these manufactures (not including wearing apparel)were:

£


Goods of silk or of silk mixed with other materials
24,713,509


Goods of artificial silk
2,24,807

As regards the production in this country of artificial silk, I have noted in the "Manchester Guardian Commercial," of 5th March last, an estimate of production during 1924 of 10,885 metric tons, or about. 24,000,000 lbs.

ALCOHOL (BEVERAGE AND INDUSTRIAL).

Mr. STEPHEN(for Mr. HARDIE): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of distillers producing alcohol for beverage use only, for industrial uses, and for industrial purposes only?

Mr. CHURCHILL:: The information in the possession of the Board of Customs and Excise shows that at the present time there are 138 distilleries at work in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Of these 118 produce alcohol for beverage use only, five for industrial use only, and 15 for both beverage and industrial use.

METHYLATED SPIRITS.

Mr. STEPHEN(for Mr. HARDIE): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
what is the total sum of money paid in allowances to methylators of power and industrial methylated spirits for the financial year just closed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The total amount of allowances paid to methylators in the year ended 31st March, 1925, in respect of spirits used for making power and industrial spirits, was £118,759.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (BRITISH CLAIM).

SirALEXANDER SPROT: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made of the amount due from the Irish Free State under Article 5 of the Treaty; if so, what is the amount due; and if any demand has been made for payment?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery):: I have been asked to reply to this question. As stated in the replies which were given to the hon. Member for Reading on the 30th ultimo, arid to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull yesterday, a memorandum has been forwarded to the Free State Government setting out the British claim. That claim is subject to any just claims which may be made by the Irish Free State by way of set-off or counter-claim, and it is not now possible to estimate what amount may be agreed upon or in default of agreement may be determined by arbitration under the Treaty to be due from the Free State.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

LOCAL RATES.

Mr.T.THOMSON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the serious handicap to the revival of trade caused by the burden of heavy local rates due to unemployment, he will receive a deputation representing the local authorities of those industrial districts where unemployment is most severe, in order that they may lay their case before him for some State assistance?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The position in these areas has been repeatedly brought to the notice of this and previous Govern
ments both by deputation and in other ways, and I can assure the hon. Member that there is no lack of appreciation on our part of their difficulties and that a very considerable measure of State assistance is already being given to them in various ways.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a deputation has not had the privilege of seeing himself on this question? Cannot he follow the precedent of his predecessors and receive a deputation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should he quite ready, of course, to receive a deputation, when other public matters are less pressing, but for the fact that in regard to this matter the deputation should first of all go to the Minister of Health.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is consideration of this matter not more necessary now, in consequence of the heavy extra burdens to be expected from the right hon. Gentleman's Budget statement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We anticipate a large series of discussions in this House on that subject.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the method of rating which he and his party proposed to introduce prior to the War would go a long way to relieve local authorities?

INSURANCE (CONTRIBUTIONS)

Mr. GROVES: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour the total contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Acts from 1st January, 1920, up to the 31st December, 1924, discriminating between the contributions of the insured workers themselves, their employers, and the State?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The total contributions from the 8th November, 1920 (the date when the present extended scheme of Unemployment Insurance came into force), to the 31st December, 1924, were:



£


Employed persons
61,090,000


Employers
67,560,000


Service Departments (in respect of men discharged from the Forces)
3,010,000


Exchequer
44,600,000


Total
£176,260,000

From the 1st January, 1920, to the 7th November, 1920, when the limited scheme was in operation, the contributions were, approximately:



£


Employed persons
1,370,000


Employers
1,370,000


Exchequer
915,000


Total 
£3,655,000

RELIEF WORK, WEST HAM.

Mr. GROVES: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that men who have been engaged on schemes of relief work under the West Ham Council and Guardians have been refused benefit by and through the Canning Town Employment Exchange, on the ground that they are not making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to their capacities and that they are not willing to accept such employment; whether he will investigate the circumstances attending the fact that such definite instructions to so disqualify such workers have been given in writing to the members of the rota committee by the officers of the Canning Town Employment Exchange; and whether he will issue definite instructions on this matter, indicating that all such stamps for periods of work are valid contributions to the benefit of a worker or absolve local authorities completely from the liability of such contributions and refund all such moneys so paid?

Mr. BETTERTON: If I understand him aright, what the hon. Member asks is that the acceptance of employment as relief work should be regarded as sufficient proof that a person is making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacities and willing to accept such employment and is, therefore, qualified for extended benefit. I cannot accept this suggestion. Each case must be decided in the light of all the
facts. As regards contributions, I assure the hon. Member that all those paid in respect of insurable relief work are valid contributions and are so treated.

Mr. GROVES: Am I to understand that the policy of the Ministry is that work under the relief schemes of the boards of guardians is not accepted as constituting" a reasonable effort to obtain employment," and will he kindly answer the first part of my question as to whether or not he is aware of the instructions issued by his officials to the rota committee?

Mr. BETTERTON: According to my information, no such instructions were issued. If the hon. Member will see me afterwards, I will look into the matter.

Mr. GROVES: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that the West Ham Board of Guardians have introduced a system of relief work whereby men are employed on jobs for such periods only as will permit them to earn wages equal to the amount they would otherwise receive in relief; whether he is aware that this exchange of labour is performed without any reference to the local Employment Exchanges; and whether he will take steps to see that the local Employment Exchange offers to the guardians the necessary skilled or unskilled labour at the current trade union rates of pay and conditions of labour generally?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend is aware that arrangements have been made by the West Ham guardians and by some other boards of guardians to secure, by co—operation with the local authorities, a certain measure of employment for persons who would otherwise be in receipt of relief and have no useful employment. As the persons employed under such schemes are selected from those who make application to the guardians it is unnecessary that the guardians should obtain the assistance of the local Labour Exchange.

Mr. GROVES: Is the Minister aware that people in West Ham under these schemes are only allowed to work the exact number of hours which will qualify them to earn the amount of money they would otherwise receive in relief; and
does he realise that in West Ham these poor people have no chance of qualifying?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of those facts. If the hon. Member puts them to me, I will investigate them.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain boards of guardians, having allowed a man to work for one week, disqualify him from receiving relief for the next three weeks, so that a man has to live for a month on one week's wages; and will he look into that matter?

Sir K.WOOD: I shall be very glad to look into the point raised by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMBASSY MAIL BAGS.

Mr. LANSBURY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether letters, newspapers and other documents are sent to British representatives in Paris, Moscow, Rome and other capitals in sealed bags; do similar conditions apply in respect to foreign Ministers in this country; and, in this respect, a re the arrangements as to Russian newspapers coming into this country to the Russian Legation and British newspapers going to the British Legation in Moscow exactly similar to those which apply to other nations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer lo the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the third part is also in the affirmative, except that the contents of bags containing parcels and newspapers addressed to His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Moscow are examined by the Soviet Customs authorities, in the presence of a representative of the British Mission, for the purpose of assessing duty. On occasion we have exercised a similar right.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILD WELFARE CLINICS.

Mr. LANSBURY: asked the Minister of Health the amount of public money spent by local authorities during the years ending March, 1913, and March, 1925, on child welfare clinics and other centres, and the amount spent on the supply of milk to nursing and expectant mothers during the same period, showing the amount raised from the rates and the amount paid from the National Exchequer

Sir K. WOOD: As the answer is long, and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no more injurious diet to give to nursing mothers than milk? Will he have some investigation made?

Following is the answer

No figures are available as regards maternity and child welfare services in respect of the year ended March, 1913, the year ended 31st March, 1915, being the first year in respect of which Exchequer Grant was paid on these services. The total net expenditure of local authorities in England and Wales on all maternity and child welfare services in that year was (approximately) £66,700, and of voluntary agencies receiving ExchequerGrant(approximately)£16.200. No separate figures as to the expenditure of local authorities on maternity and child welfare centres and clinics, or on the supply of milk to nursing and expectant mothers and children are available prior to the year ended March,1920.For that year the net expenditure was as follows:

The net expenditure on centres and clinics provided by voluntary agencies receiving Exchequer Grant in that year was approximately £102,000.

Particulars of the actual expenditure on these services for the year ended March, 1925, are not yet available, but the net expenditure for the year ended March, 1924, was as follows:

One-half of the expenditure referred to above was met by way of Exchequer Grant, and one-half of the net expenditure of local authorities was met out of the rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALLPOX (VACCINATION).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the recent increase in cases of smallpox throughout the country; what is the total number of cases which have been notified during the past three months; and whether he has received any report as to the causes which have brought about the recent increase in such cases?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affimative. The total number of cases of smallpox notified in England and Wales during the 12 weeks from the 4th January to the 28th March was 1,609. My right hon. Friend has received numerous reports made by medical officers of his Department who have visited the districts in which smallpox is prevalent, and is advised that the recent increase in the number of cases may be attributed to the neglect of vaccination in many of the invaded districts, and to neglect of the precautions which are essential if the spread of the disease is to be checked. My right hon. Friend may perhaps take this opportunity of informing the House and the country that he is advised that there is no doubt that the disease now so prevalent in certain districts is true smallpox, though happily mild in degree, and that vaccination is the only reliable protection against it.

Sir W.DAVISON: Can my hon. Friend say whether or not the late Minister of Health issued an Order making it easier for people to obtain exemption from vaccination?

Dr. WATTS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that each of these cases costs the local authority £250 for treatment, isolation, disinfection and so forth; has his attention been drawn to the report of a medical officer of health who proves distinctly that in his area, with the money
which had to be spent on these cases. they could have built 1,000 or 1,500 houses?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman issue Orders to local authorities to expedite the building of houses and the opening up of spaces, and to take steps to eliminate this disease by fresh air and pure food instead of by vaccination?

Sir W. DAVISON: May I have a reply to my question, as to whether additional facilities were given by the late Minister of Health for obtaining exemption?

Sir K. WOOD: I propose to reply to that point on the next question.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Member also say whether there has been an outbreak of smallpox in the East End of London within the last few days?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: 60.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the increase of smallpox in certain areas; and whether the incidence of the disease has been increased since the coming into effect of the present regulations affecting exemption from vaccination?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, it is presumed that my hon. Friend is referring to the Order issued by the late Minister of Health, which had the effect of reversing an Order issued by my right hon. Friend on the 20th July, 1923, and of re-inserting the form of statutory declaration of conscientious objection in the notice of the requirement of vaccination handed to the parent or guardian when the birth of a child is registered. The Order of the late Minister came into force on the 1st October last, and my right hon. Friend is carefully watching its effect, but there is not yet sufficient evidence to enable him to form a final opinion.

Dr. WATTS: How does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that, despite the number of cases of smallpox which occur, proceedings are rarely, if ever, instituted under the present Vaccination Act?

Sir K. WOOD: I must ask for notice of that question.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Are His Majesty's Government considering the transference of these powers from the boards of guardians to the sanitary authorities so that they may be worked in common with the general maintenance of the public health?

Oral Answers to Questions — PLUMAGE (ILLEGAL IMPORTS)

7.Colonel APPLIN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a consignment of great crested grebe has been imported recently from Holland, in a consignment of ducks and other edible wild fowl used in the poultry trade, and passed on by the importers to certain firms which prepare plumage for this trade; and whether he will take the necessary steps to prevent the illegal smuggling of plumage in this manner?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am not aware that any such importation has taken place, but if the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to furnish such particulars of the importation as may be available, full inquiry shall be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN DOLLARS.

TREASURY PURCHASES.

45.Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average price at which the reserve of dollars was purchased by the Treasury; and what is the present value of this reserve of dollars bought as security against a gold drain?

Mr. CHURCHILL: At the present rate of exchange the $166,000,000 accumulated by the Treasury to cover debt payments to the United States of America are worth about 34¼million pounds. As the dollars represent the balance resulting from purchases, from interest on purchases, and from sales of securities acquired during the War after making periodic payments to the United States of America, it is not possible to give a precise figure of the average price of this residue.
It is obvious that these dollars having been bought before gold parity was reached cost more than what they would cost at par. To the extent that this is so, it is an indication of one of the advantages which the Exchequer will reap from the return to the gold standard.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a rough estimate as to the amount of loss on these dollar purchases?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have explained that it is extremely difficult to calculate. Of course, we are continually making these payments to America, every half-year, and we are continually accumulating dollars in order to be able to make our payments, and the estimate of the loss would require minute calculations in regard to many individual purchases of dollars which have been made from time to time in America, and that result would have to be measured against the actual value of the assets of exchange reserve at the time they were originally accumulated.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand, then, that there have been no special purchases such as the right hon. Gentleman alluded to in his Budget speech of 166,000,000 dollars in order to acquire this large reserve? Has that not involved special purchases at expensive prices?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, yes. Special purchases have been made. In the ordinary course of events we should have accumulated now for the June payment, but we have not merely accumulated for the June payment, but for the December payment as well, and that has entailed a greater amount of purchase of dollars during the last few months than would otherwise have taken place.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why could not the right hon. Gentleman wait to make the purchases for the December payment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is that I was very anxious to secure the transition to gold being made under the most favourable circumstances. I wished to get out of the way beforehand as many of those obligations to purchase dollars as possible, because in the autumn we have to buy our cotton and our wheat and many other things, and if we were going on the market to buy many millions of dollars for the purposes of debt payment, that would hamper our traders and put an undue strain on the Exchequer. It may have been, and very likely will prove to be, an unnecessary precaution,
but it is a precaution which we thought necessary in order to meet the debt payments.

SeveralHON.MEMBERS: roseဤ

Mr. SPEAKER: We had all this in debate yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY INSURANCE SCHEME

IRON AND STEEL TRADES

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has formed any estimate of the total overhead charge falling upon the iron and steel trades, heavy and finished, of this country by reason of their payments under the proposed contributory insurance scheme?

Sir K. WOOD: I have been asked to reply. The proposed contributory insurance scheme is framed on a national basis and not on the basis of segregation of industries. Estimates of the produce of the contributions and the value of the benefits have, therefore, been prepared for the scheme as a single whole, but are not available for each separate industry.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of this very serious additional charge upon an industry which is making no profits at the present time, would it not be possible to calculate what this charge will involve on the iron and steel industry of this country?

Sir K. WOOD: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to put that question down, but I would remind him that there was issued this morning a very exhaustive White Paper from the Government Actuary, in which he will see that a large number of the aspects of this matter are discussed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The question on the Paper is what the iron and steel trades will have to bear, and I should have thought it could be answered.

Sir K. WOOD: The answer is that no separate calculation has been made.

Mr. MACQU ISTEN: Is it possible to find out the burden imposed on the workers in these particular industries by the large sums of money that they are compelled to contribute for the upkeep of the "Daily Herald "?

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman state one single case where there is a burden placed on the workers to support the "Daily Herald "?

Sir H. CROFT: It is burden enough to read it.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. DEAN (for Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE): 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider making a mutual arrangement with the Dominions whereby men and women can receive old age pensions who are debarred by Section 3 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1911, as amended by Section 2 (3) of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1919. on amount of having spent some of the qualifying period in the Dominions?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have noted my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, which would involve legislation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister a question about business? Perhaps I had better put two together for his convenience: First of all, whether he has considered if it is possible to give more time for a discussion on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions, and, secondly, what business he proposes to take today?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): We have been doing our best to consult the convenience of the House, and I understand that there is general assent to securing the first four Orders on the Paper today, and including in them the Third Reading of the Gold Standard Bill. That leaves the way clear tomorrow, and we propose to start tomorrow upon the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions, which I hope it may be possible to bring to a conclusion on Thursday night. Of course, the Eleven o'Clock Rule is automatically suspended in the case of the Report Stage of those Resolutions. That being the case, I have no intention of moving the Motion which stands in my name, to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule today for the Gold Standard Bill, which was only put down to ensure the passage of the necessary stages of that Bill.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hope of getting the remainder of the Report stages of the Budget Resolutions on Thursday may not be fulfilled—that there is no pledge, that is to say, that he shall get them so far as some Members are concerned?

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree that there is no pledge, and the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) will remember that I said "I hope."

CaptainBENN: Yes.

BUDGET PROPOSALS (NEW IMPORT DUTIES).

Captain BENN: I want to raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, about one of the Budget Resolutions. The only reason for raising it today is that it may be necessary to put down a considered Motion in respect of it, and today, in view of the change of business, will be the only opportunity of doing so. It relates to the third of these Resolutions, in regard to the New Import Duties, and the point I wish to put is this: It is an old established practice of this House that complicated questions shall be divided, that is to say, that two issues may not be put in one question, and if that practice is important in relation to ordinary business, I submit that it is far more important in relation to Motions which impose taxation. Now I am well aware that these New Import Duties have been renewed from year to year in one Resolution, and I am aware that protest has been made, but that the protest has been overruled, but my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, is that this is not the renewal of any existing duties, but the imposition of new duties, duties that I know have been in operation for some time beforehand. Therefore my submission to you is that it is not consistent with the practice and the privilege of this House for four totally divergent duties to be imposed in one Resolution, and that is the point of Order that I wish to put.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to what are generally known as new import duties

Captain BENN: Yes, Sir.

Mr.SPEAKER: which, in many Finance Bills, form, I think, the first or second Clause of the Bill.

Captain BENN: An early Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not know the hon. and gallant Member was going to raise this point.

Captain BENN: I apologise. I did not know that the Budget was to be taken tomorrow.

Mr. SPEAKER: Those duties have been for a good many years—since 1915, I think —continued in a single Clause.

Captain BENN: That is so.

Mr. SPEAKER: And what is at present proposed is a repetition of that practice?

Captain BENN: My point is that in effect this is not a continuation of any duties, but an imposition of new duties.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member asked me some question about one of the Budget Resolutions. I am not quite clear as to his point.

Captain BENN: I was asking you whether you would consider it proper, when the Resolution is put tomorrow, to order that it be either recommitted or divided, so that the practice may be preserved of having separate issues put in separate questions.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think I ought to take a little time to look into the question. It comes quite fresh to me, and will require some consideration.

Captain BENN: I apologise for having put the question without notice. I have explained that it is due to the arrangement of business. The reason I ask is. would it be in Order to place on the Order Paper today a considered Motion, that is to say, on consideration of the Resolution of Ways and Means, New Import Duties, to move that it be recommitted, for certain reasons?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that would be in Order. We have a Resolution which has been passed by a Committee of the whole House, and it will come to us as a Report from the Committee of the whole House; but I will consider that point, along with the others.

Lieut.CommanderKENWORTHY: With reference to the House having passed that particular Resolution in Committee, I would point out that it is simply read from the Chair, and we have not seen it in print. I hope that will be taken into consideration.

Mr. SPEAKER: We must bear in mind that the Committee of Ways and Means, which is a Committee of the whole House, is our primary authority in taxation matters—a principle which we all ought to uphold.

Captain BENN: On that point, is it not the fact, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, that of course we have no opportunity of seeing the Motion before it is put, and that, therefore, a duty rests on the shoulders of the Chairman of Ways and Means to decline to put a Motion which infringes the privileges of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am quite sure that any Chairman of Ways and Means would regard that as one of his first duties.

FIRE BRIGADE PENSIONS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to lie taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

STATUTORY GAS COMPANIES (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY POWERS) BILL

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Arthur Churchman.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions Continuance (Scotland) Bill and the Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Bill): Mr. Campbell; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, An Act for the protection of the names, uniforms and badges of associations incorporated by Royal Charter." [Chartered Associations (Protection of Names and Uniforms) Bill [Lords].]

Orders of the Day — GOLD STANDARD [MONEY].

Resolution reported,

" That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the return to a Gold Standard and for purposes connected therewith it is expedient to authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of the principal and interest of any money raised under the said Act and any sums payable by the Treasury in fulfilling any guarantee given there under, together with any expenses incurred by the Treasury in connection with or with a view to the exercise of the powers conferred on them by the said Act of raising or guaranteeing loans."

Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in line 4, after the word "money," to insert the words" not exceeding sixty million pounds."
We had the opportunity of moving this Amendment when this Resolution came before the Committee rather late last night, but, owing to the course of the Debate, we thought that it would be more convenient to the House if we waited until the Resolution came up on Report, and, therefore, we have reserved our Amendment until now. The Resolution before the House arises out of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the purpose of returning to the gold standard, has taken power to obtain credits from the United States. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in his Budget speech, that in order to secure himself against certain contingencies, he had obtained credit from the United States amounting to 300,000,000 dollars—for our purpose we have translated this in our Amendment into £60,000,000—and the Financial Secretary gave us further information yesterday, and explained that of this £60,000,000, £40,000,000 was obtained from the Federal Reserve Board and £20,000,000 from J. P. Morgan and Company
We propose, briefly, to take the £60,000,000, which has already been obtained as credits, as a limit, and to make it impossible for the Government to obtain credits in addition to that £60,000,000 without coming to the House for fresh authority. The reason for this is as follows: This power is generally recognised as the most dangerous and the
most treacherous of the powers contained in this particular proposal, and it is, I think, a very significant fact that the Currency Committee, on whose Report this Bill is founded, had evidently, at the time of its report not made up its mind to recommend this proposal to the Government. You will not find in the Report of the Currency Committee any specific proposal that the Government shall take power to obtain credit from the United States. All that the Currency Committee did was to issue a very grave warning of the difficulties which might arise if any such power were utilised. We regard that power of one of the most dangerous and, possibly, of the most treacherous character. If we are in such difficulties that we have to obtain credits in the United States, then that is only postponing the time when we shall have to meet those difficulties for ourselves. If the position becomes so bad, the exchanges so adverse to us, trade movements an unfavourable, and there is the possibility of a drain of gold to this amount out of this country to the United States, then—as we were pointing out yesterday—it will be essential, either by the raising of the Bank rate, or by other methods, to reverse the exchanges, and to alter those trade movements to meet the position for ourselves. The power of borrowing from the United States merely means that we are putting off the day when we shall have to meet them, and that we arc creating fresh difficulties for ourselves when that day shall come.
There can—I can conceive—only be two possible contingencies under which it might be necessary to use such a power as this. One is to frighten speculators. I can imagine—I think it is conceivable—that there might be some sudden and very temporary crisis: that there might be for a limited period a drain of gold. Under those conditions it might he better to obtain credits for a very short period from the United States than to raise the Bank rate. Those appear to me to be the only conceivable conditions under which such a power should he utilised. Therefore we say that there ought to be a distinct limit to the extent to which this machinery can be operated without coming back again for the fresh authority of this House. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in opening his speech yesterday, I think intended to indicate that, in fact, there is such a limit imposed in
this Bill. I suppose he will tell us. But I gather the limit is laid down by the fact that we cannot obtain, through this means, credit to a greater extent than are now allowed by the Supply Services and the ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill. That, I gather, is the explanation; it seems to meet with the assent of the right hon. Gentleman. That is the limit. But I submit to the Chancellor that for this particular purpose it is a limit so high as to be absolutely fanciful in its character. I think he ought to accept the reasonable limit we have taken from his own figures.
If you take the limit of the possibilities of borrowing by the Supply Services, and the Consolidated Fund Bill, you get a limit of S200,000,000, £250,000,000 or £300,000,000. That is a limit which, for this purpose, is so fanciful as not to be within the bounds of reasonable discussion. Therefore, our position is this: that if ever the occasion arises in which you have to obtain from the United States credit to as large a sum as £60,000,000, it would represent a situation so serious that you would be bound to come back to the House of Commons and explain the facts before going beyond that sum. It is for that reason that we propose this limit as a reasonable amount to be introduced into the Resolution.

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
The two chief points have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is correct in hoping that the Bank rate will never be raised and that we shall get through this change satisfactorily, then that would appear to be the more reason for adopting the proposal we are putting forward. In addition, there still remain two reasons; one is, I think, a perfectly sound one, that you should put a limit upon the borrowing powers of any Government asking for those powers, and the second is that if at any time we arrive at the stage where we have to obtain a credit of £60,000,000 sterling from New York in order to help our financial position here, then there can be no objection—mid I think the House will agree with me in this —that the House of Commons, at any rate, should have the opportunity of discussing the whole position and very carefully considering the next step that ought
to be taken. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept the Amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): There is nothing unreasonable in the proposal that has been made. Still, I hope it will not be insisted upon. I could not say that we should, in all human probability, be exposed to any very grave inconvenience if this Amendment were inserted in the Bill. I, frankly, do not believe the contingencies we are guarding against will ever arise. At the same time I shall ask the House to give us the full latitude which we have contemplated as necessary. What is the position? I have at the present time under the law and long practice the power of borrowing up to the limit of the Supply Services, as the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment very correctly explained. The limit of the Supply Services is £407,000,000. If we deduct the Consolidated Fund Charges from the Budget, we have left a Supply total of £407,000,000. We provided in March for Votes on Account of £163,000,000. Therefore the total limit of the Supply Services up to which I have borrowing powers is, approximately, £2244,000,000, and that, again, is reduced by the ordinary necessities of financial procedure—by the borrowing at different times during the year of something like £100,000,000 for the purpose of defraying the expenditure which has accrued in advance of the collection of the taxes. Consequently, you may say that, broadly speaking, the borrowing powers for which I am asking a greater latitude are limited to £150,000,000. I should not have to ask the House at all for powers in this matter but for two circumstances. The power which the Exchequer has of borrowing up 4.0 P.M. to the limit of the Supply Services is governed by two conditions. Any money so borrowed must be paid into the Exchequer, and the debt incurred must be cancelled within periods named in the Appropriation Act. What I am seeking is discretionary power in the special circumstances that exist to do no more than I am entitled to do in the ordinary course of events so far as the amount is concerned, but not necessarily to devote the proceeds immediately payment into the Exchequer or to be
bound to cancel the debt within those precise periods. That is the relief that I seek, and that is the purpose of this Clause in the Bill. I think the House ought in all the circumstances to give me that relief.
We are carrying through an operation which, if successful, will, not next year or the year after, but in future years be regarded as a very memorable event in the financial history not only of this country but of the whole world, and we have been trying to do it in a way that will avoid any shock to our normal trade or finance or employment, ward off the risks attendant upon it, calm fears, allay doubts, and, above all, warn off the speculators who might easily, if we had not taken tremendous precautions, have made this reversion to the gold standard, so much talked about—it could not help being talked about—over the last few months, the occasion for large speculations which would have resulted in their unloading their purchases upon the market to take their profits and affect the exchange. We have endeavoured to put ourselves in a position where it is quite clear that anyone who thinks that Great Britain is not capable of maintaining the gold parity which she has established, and who proposes to risk his money by bearing the British exchange, will come into contact with enormous reserves, and reserves, not only enormous, but almost indefinite in their extent. From that point of view, I am rather anxious to keep the element of vagueness a part of the American counterpoise, a part of the credits which we are establishing in the United States.
I have made arrangements for 300,000,000 dollars. I could quite easily have made arrangements for 500,000,000. I do not believe it will be necessary to use any of them, but the whole object of this is to act as a decisive deterrent to purely speculative attempts at making money by breaking down the arrangement, and, from that point of view, the insertion of this particular limit would, I will not say seriously, because I am not over—arguing the question, but to a certain extent, diminish the efficiency of the deterrent upon speculation. That is why I ask the House in these special circumstances for this special latitude. It is quite certain if we had to use these
credits at all it would only be after a very serious situation had arisen in this country, necessitating not only heavy gold exports but an alteration in the Bank rate here. It is not for use, but as a final warning and safeguard, and I ask the House to let me have that safeguard in circumstances which will render it as effective and as impressive as possible.

Lieut.—Commander KENWORTHY: I am nearly persuaded by the Chancellor, but not quite. He tells us that it is necessary to preserve this atmosphere of secrecy, these secret negotiations behind the scenes

Mr. CHURCHILL: I never said any such thing.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: -for these unknown and undetermined sums up to, but not more, according to himself, than about £150,000,000 at a time owing to his necessity of having to find money for public purposes, and so on. As I say, I am not quite persuaded by the right hon. Gentleman, and I rather support my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees Smith) who moved the Amendment. I think the thing could have been done quite naturally and normally without all this reclame and without this Bill. But in this difficult time of change over all the right. hon. Gentleman has thought fit to provide is 155,000,000 dollars, which he tells us that at the present rate of exchange is equal to about £34.500,000. My hon. Friend suggests that he should have the latitude of about twice that amount. Surely that is ample. If it he necessary at this time to provide only £34,500,000, £60,000,000 would be all sufficient. I think it is necessary to put some check on the Treasury in this pro cedure. It is a new thing to do. This pegging of the exchanges and securing credits abroad is in our time comparatively novel, and I do not think that the matter can be safely left without some measure of House of Commons control. I am fortified in that view when I consider what has happened in reference to this very question of purchasing dollar credits in New York.
During the few minutes that I spoke yesterday I raised a matter which I think is very pertinent to this Resolution, but I got no reply. Probably, it was my own fault, because I was called out of the
House. I asked what was the average price at which the credits were purchased. I believe the purchase price of the 155,000,000 dollars which the right hon. Gentleman has got from New York was about 4.70 cents to the £. today the dollar stands at 4.84 cents, that shows that we have made a considerable loss, at any rate in theory. There may be some explanation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle—under—Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) raised this question at Question Time, but I was somewhat diffident about putting supplementary questions. I always have to force myself to do these things. But I would press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the average price at which these 155,000,000 dollars of credit were secured. Am I right in saying that it was about 4.70 cents? If that be the case, I think the Treasury has been over cautious and over prudent and has lost money in consequence. A little more faith in British credit would have saved a considerable amount of money to this country. However, it is not for me to blame the right hon. Gentleman for over caution. I never thought that I would stand here and accuse him of that. Apparently. that is going to be his métier as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we ought to welcome it.
But there should be some House of Commons control. The history of these transactions makes that very clear, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on this Amendment, which I am glad to support. The right hon. Gentleman talks about warding off speculators. He has not warned off speculators. It was his colleague in the French Ministry of Finance last year when the attempted bear was made on francs. A much smaller credit in New York stopped it

and the speculators received a well—deserved lesson. I do not think that this warning was very necessary on behalf of British sterling. However, these are facts on which one should not lay down the law, and I only make these suggestions to the House. In view of all the circumstances of the case, the novelty of the whole situation, and the necessity of the House of Commons maintaining some sort of control over the Treasury powers of borrowing and arranging credits with New York, I think that this £60,000,000 is a very reasonable sum, and I hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division in the matter

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I think that, as a matter of business, any Bill that comes before this House should have in it some limit as to the amount for which the nation is responsible. I quite appreciate the fact that this does not increase the total amount in any way. I remember, when the Gold and Silver Embargo Act went through in 1920, the present Prime Minister introduced the Bill without a limit as to the time that gold should be controlled. There was an Amendment put down by Sir Donald Maclean who suggested that the limit should be three years. Eventually, the Prime Minister agreed to a five years' limit, which comes to an end at the end of December, 1925. I do think that in this Bill there should be some sort of amount, such as £60,000,000, put in, and I humbly suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should agree, as I hope he will agree as a matter of principle, that that amount should be put into the Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 265.

Division No. 80.]
AYES.
[4.13 p.m.


Alexander, A.V.(Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cove, W. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Adamson, W. M.(Staff., Cannock)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hamilton, Sir R.(Orkney Shetland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dalton, Hugh 
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Baker, J.(Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) 
Hayes, John Henry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) 
Day, Colonel Harry 
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)'


Barnes, A. 
Duncan, C.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Barr, J.
Dunnico, H.
Hirst, G. H.


Batey, Joseph
Fenby, T.D.
Hirst, W.(Bradford, South)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Briant, Frank 
Gillett, George M.
Kelly, W. T.


Bromfield, William 
Greenall, T.
Kennedy, T.


Bromley, J. 
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kenworthy, Lt-Com. Hon. Joseph M-


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) 
Grenfell. D. R. (Glamorgan) 
Lawson, John James


Cape, Thomas 
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lee, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Groves, T.
Lowth, T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William


Compton, Joseph
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Mackinder, W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


MacLaren, Andrew
Snort, Alfred(Wednesbury)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Maclean, Nell(Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben(Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Welsh, J.C.


March, S.
Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)
Westwood, J.


Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie(Penistone)
whiteley, W.


Montague, Frederick
Snell, Harry
Wignall, James


Morris, R.H.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. BenjaminCharles
Wilkinson, EllenC.


Morrison, R.C.(Tottenham, North)
Stamford, T.W.
Williams, David(Swansea, E.)


Murnin, H,
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, Dr. J.H.(Llane'lly)


Nelson, SirFrank
Sutton, J.E.
Williams, T.(York, DonValley)


Palin, JohnHenry
Thomas, Rt. Hon. JamesH.(Derby)
Wilson, C.H.(Sheffield, Atterclitte)


Paling, W.
Thomson, Trevelyan(Middlesbro. W.)
Wilson, R.J.(Jarrow)


Pethick-Lawrence, F.W.
Thorne, G.R.(Wolverhampton, E. 
Windsor, Walter


Potts, JohnS.
Thorne, w.(WestHam, Plalstow)
Wise, SirFredric


Richardson, R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtle, E.
Young, Robert(Lancaster, Newton)


Riley, Ben
Tinker, JohnJoseph


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwlch)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C.P.
TELLERSFORTHEAYES.


Robinson. W.C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Viant, S.P.
Mr. AllenParkinsonandMr.


Rose, FrankH.
Watson, W.M.(Dunlermilne)
Warne.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda)


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel'
Davies, A.V.(Lancaster, Royton)
Holland, SirArthur


Agg, Gardner, Rt. Hon. SirJamesT.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset. Yeovil)
Holt, CaptainH. P.


Albery, IrvingJames
Davies, SirThomas(Cirencester)
Homan, C.W.J.


Alexander, E.E.(Leyton)
Davison, SirW. H.(Kensington, S.)
Hopkins, J.W.W.


Applin, Colonel R. V.K.
Doyle, SirN. Grattan
Hopkinson, A.(Lancaster, Mossley)


Astbury, Lieut.-CommanderF. W.
Drewe, C.
Horne, Rt. Hon. SirRobertS.


Atkinson, C.
Eden, CaptainAnthony
Hudson, Capt. A.U.M.(Hackney, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Edmondson, MajorA. J.
Hudson, R.S.(Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Ballour, George(Hampstead)
Edwards, John H.(Accrington)
Hume, SirG. H.


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Huntingfield, Lord


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Elveden, Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.


Barclay-Harvey, C.M.
Eiskine, Lord(Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hurst, Gerald B.


Barnett, MajorRichardW.
Evans, Captain A.(Cardiff, South)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F.S.


Barnston, MajorSirHarry
Evans, Capt. Ernest(Welsh Univer.)
Jackson, SirH.(Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bellairs, CommanderCarlyon W
Everard, W. Lindsay
James. Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bentinck, LordHenryCavendish-
Fairfax, CaptainJ. G.
Jephcott, A.R.


Blades, SirGeorgeRowland
Falle, SirBertramG.
Jones, G.W.H.(StokeNewlngton)


Blundell, F.N.
Falls, SirCharlesF.
Jones, HenryHaydn(Merioneth)


Boothby, R.J.G.
Fanshawe, CommanderG. D.
Joynson-Hlcks, Rt. Hon. SirWilliam


Bourne, CaptainRobertCroft
Fermoy, Lord
Kennedy, A.R.(Preston).


Bowater, SirT. Vansittart
Fielden, E.B.
Kenyon, Barnet


Bowyer, Capt. G.E.W.
Fleming, D.P.
Kidd, J.(Linlithgow)


Brass, Captain W.
Ford, P.J.
Kindersley, Major G.M.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Forrest, W.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Briggs, J. Harold
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Briscoe, Richard George
Foxcroft, Captain C.T.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brocklebank, C.E.R.
Fraser, CaptainIan
Lamh, JQ.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C.R.I.
Frece, Sir Walterde
Leigh, SirJohn(Clapham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. SirPhilip


Brown, Maj. D.C.(N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Loder, J. deV.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ganzoni, SirJohn
Lougher, L.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gates, Percy
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Bullock, Captain M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Burman, J.B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. SirJohn
Lumley, L.R.


Butler, SirGeoffrey
Glyn, Major R.G.C.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, R.(Glasgow, Cathcart)


Campbell, E.T.
Grace, John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Cayzer, Sir C.(Chester, City)
Grant, J.A.
Macintyre, Ian


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
McLean, MajorA.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. SirH.(W'th's'w, E.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gretton, Colonel John
Macquisten, F.A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Grotrlan, H. Brent
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Chapman, Sir S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Maitland, SirArthur D. Steel


Christie, J.A.
Gunston, Captain D.W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hall, Capt. W.D'A.(Brecon Rad.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Clayton, G.C.
Hammersley, S.S.
Margesson, Capt. D.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A.D.
Hannon, PatrickJoseph Henry
Meller, R.J.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G.K.
Harland, A.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cohen, Major J.Brunel
Harrison, G.J.C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Harvey, MajorS. E.(Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, W. Foot(Saffron Walden)


Cooper, A. Duff
Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane(Streatham)


Cope, Major William
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxt'd, Henley]
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Couper, J.B.
Heneage, Lieut.-ColonelArthurP.
Morrison. H.(Wilts, Salisbury)


Craik,Rt.Hon.Sir Henry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Crook, C.W.
Hennessy, MajorJ. R.Q.
Nail, Lieut.-ColonelSirJoseph


Crooke, J. Smedley(Derltend)
Hennlker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. SirA.
Neville. RJ.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W.(Berwick)
Herbert, Dennis(Hertford, Watford)
Newman, SirR. H.S.D.L.(Exeter)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. Wh'by)
Newton, Sir D.G.C.(Cambridge)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hilton, Cecil
Nicholson, William G.(Petersfield


Curzon, CaptainViscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. SirS. J.G.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, KernelHtmpst'd)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. SirD.(St. Marylnbone)
Nuttall, Ellis




Oakley, T.
Shaw, Capt. W.W.(Wilts, Wcstb'y)
Warner, Brigadier-GeneralW. W.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Shepperson, E.W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Owen, Major G
Simms, Dr. John M.(Co. Down)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Pennefather, SirJohn
Sinclair, Major Sir A.(Caithness)
Watson, Sir F.(Pudsey and Otley)


Penny, Frederick George
Skelton, A.N.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W.(Carlisle)


Percy, Lord Eustace(Hastings)
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n Kinc'dine, C.)
Watts, Dr. T.


Perkins, Colonel E.K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, S.R.


Peto, Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)
Somerville, A.A.(Windsor)
Wheler, Major Granville C.H.


Peto, G.(Somerset, Frome)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Williams, Com. C.(Devon, Torquay)


Preston, William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)
Williams, C.P.(Denbigh, Wrexham)


Raine, W.
Stanley, Lord(Fylde)
Williams, Herbort G.(Reading)


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Hon. O.F.G.(Westm'eland)
Wilson, Sir C.H.(Leeds, Central)


Reid, Capt. A.S.C.(Warrlngton)
Steel, MalorSamuel Strang
Wilson, R.R.(Stafford, Lichfield)


Remnant, Sir James
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W.H.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-ColonelGeorge


Rhys, Hon. C.A.U.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Roberts, E.H.G.(Flint)
Stuart, Hon.J.(Morayand Nairn)
Womersley, W.J. 

Robinson, Sir T.(Lanes., Stretford)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood, B.C.(Somerset, Bridgwater)


Ropner, Major L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfred
Wood, Rt. Hon. E.(York, W.R., Ripon)


Ruggies-Brise,Major E.A.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'geHyde)


Russell. AlexanderWest (Tynemouth)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Wood, Sir Kingsley(Woolwich, W.)


Salmon, Major I.
Thompson, Luke(Sunderland)
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(HighPeak)


Samuel, A.M.(Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, F.C.(Aberdeen, S.)
Woodcock, Colonel H.C.


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Yerburgh, Major Robert D.T.


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K.P.


Savery, S.S.
Wallace, Captain D.E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Scott, Sir Leslie(Liverp'l, Exchange)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Colonel Gibbsand Captain Douglas Hacking.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWO RTHY: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an answer to the question I raised on the last Amendment. think it is apposite to this Resolution, which gives him power to make large purchases of dollar securities. Will he give us the average price at which the dollars were purchased? If he cannot do it without notice, of course I am quite prepared to raise the question on another occasion, but I think we are entitled to know the price at which these 165,000,000 dollars were bought. To state the price now can make no difference, as we have the dollars, we have the credits arranged. I quite realise they were credits that accrued to us from payments for stores, and one thing and another, but there must be book transactions showing at what price they were purchased. My point is that we have made a loss on think I am right that we have a loss, it is now an inevitable loss, of 14 cents on the dollar; and on that large sum that would work out at round about 1,000,000 sterling.

Mr. CHURCHILL: indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:: Well, then, can we have the. figures? I think this is a matter of sufficient substance to jutisfy me in asking the right hon. Gentleman to give me what information he has.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I tried to give an answer on this subject at Question Time and to give reasonable information to the House upon it. We are under obligations to make very large annual payments to the United States, and in order to economise as far as possible, to make the most thrifty bargain for the public that is possible, we are continuously, as occasion serves, when good opportunities present themselves, purchasing dollars. In the ordinary course of events we should not have purchased as many dollars as we have, but in order to lighten the burden on the exchange next autumn, and to give the very best chance to our new project, we accumulated, as it were, a double dose of dollars. We increased our purchases. We purchased them over considerable periods of time from the funds in the Exchange account; we had other assets in the account, some of which were securities which were surplus; and it is very difficult to say exactly which dollars purchased at which time should be earmarked as making up this 165,000,000 dollars as these transactions have taken place over considerable periods of time. But perhaps the House will be interested to know what is our estimate of the cost. There are many different bases on which one can calculate it, but, broadly speaking, we think that if we had been able to purchase these dollars at par instead of of at the various rates we did, then—on the basis on which we calculate matters, though I agree there may be other bases
of calculation—about £400,000 would have been saved if the pound had been at par with the dollar, but it would not have been at par unless we had taken the action we have taken.
I do not think the House ought to grudge that sum in view of the enormous consequences of the Measure which is being put forward. There has been very deep anxiety about it. Many of the ablest men in the country have different opinions. Many of the ablest economists have been in doubt. Some of our most influential journals have expressed the strongest views. There has been a great deal of balancing and weighing in the balance. We have not had any doubt. We have had a perfectly clear conviction as to what the course should be, but, naturally, we have done everything in our power to make that course smooth, and to achieve this result of a reversion to the gold standard, which nobody challenges in principle, free from any seriously—adverse reactions upon the ordinary day—today business of the country, or upon the conditions of wages and employment amongst the labouring masses of the population.
That has been our aim, and while it is much too early to prophesy about it, we are not, so far, dissatisfied with the result: and in view of the size of the operation, the commission which is paid upon credits in the United States, or the loss involved in purchasing a, larger number of dollars before they are actually required to be used, form inconceivably small items to set in the opposite account. Moreover, the question which the hon. and gallant Member asked is really a hypothetical question. He starts on the basis of the pound now being at par with the dollar, and asks how much have you lost by making these earlier purchases? if we had not taken the steps we have clone, and of which these purchases were on integral part, the pound would not have been on a par with the dollar, and the basis of his calculation, on which he is seeking to found his reproach, albeit a very mild reproach, I admit—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the contrary, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me interrupting, in making these purchases you were delaying the return of the pound to par.

Mr.CHURCHILL: It is perfectly true that the purchases we made of an extra quantity of dollars were, pro tanto, an adverse weight on our exchange; that is quite true, and it only shows the sincere and honest strength of our own financial position that in spite of it the upward rise has been maintained. That is a point I am very glad to have had an opportunity of bringing out. Broadly speaking, I am sure the House feels that this large operation has been well conducted—conducted, according to the best information and advice, as well as anything can be done in this world so full of error and disappointment, and I am sure the House will not be very meticulous in its criticism of the Government for the inconceivably small charges which were required for the facilitating of so great a transaction.

Mr.RUNCIMAN: May I be allowed to say a word or two in commendation of this transaction. It has been extremely difficult to carry through for a long time, because it was attended with the many dangers to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred this afternoon. The managing of any market operations is a very delicate task for a Government Department or its agents to undertake, for however much disguise may be applied, the Government agents are known and some of their transactions naturally leak out. If I may express my own judgment, I think the right hon. Gentleman's Department and his agents made a cheap purchase at £400,000, which is not very much premium to pay against such heavy risks he was insuring. No doubt the operation and the negotiations were conducted with such skill as not to disturb the market, but if £400,000 is really the figure, then it is not too large a sum to pay, and it has done something to ensure the success of this operation. In making these remarks, I do so as one who is warmly in favour of the return to the gold standard in the early future. I do not sympathise with those who look upon this return with great apprehension. I am not going to fortify my views with any arguments, because I find that on this subject those who know the least about it talk with the greatest assurance and those who know a little more about it are cautious in expressing their views, and those who are first rate specialists say little or nothing. If I may put my
own conclusions in a single sentence, I think the right hon. Gentleman has been right in taking the course he has taken in regard to the return to the gold standard and that is the view practically of the whole of my hon. Friends here on these benches, in spite of what was said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) yesterday. That is the view I hold. I think the banking community is very well satisfied with the steps which have been taken, and although they do not always agree with the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, they are satisfied with the statement of the case he made yesterday. It is in view of that general support that I certainly say that in my judgment the agents of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman have done well to insure themselves against undue risk on the other side of the Atlantic and they have done so in a way which we can warmly commend.
Question. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — GOLD STANDARD BILL.

Considered in Committee.

CLAUSE 1.—(Issue of gold coin suspended and right to purchase gold bullion.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. LEES-SMITH: On this Clause I wish to refer to a. subject which was alluded to yesterday, but it was not very fully developed, and whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts our view or not I think it is a very legitimate view to put before him. The position is very difficult. It is this, that the Bank of England, when notes are presented, are not compelled to give coin in return, but they are compelled, if required, to give bullion in return

Mr. CHURCHILL: Over a certain amount.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: It was suggested in Debate yesterday that it is unfortunate that the provision has been retained by which the Bank must buy bullion in unlimited quantities. It has been argued
that it would have been advisable now to have abandoned that position and therefore to repeal Section 4 of the Bank Act, 1844. I wish to explain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that on this point we have really good authority behind us, which I think he will admit in a moment. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to regard the course I am taking, not as an attack, but as raising a point which I hope he will seriously consider, and one in regard to which it might be possible and advisable to introduce a new Clause to carry out this proposal. The position is this: The reason why this is now advocated is that our position in returning to the gold standard is not going to be the same as it was before the War. We admit that we are now obtaining greater stability of exchange, but as a consequence we are giving up our control of our own internal price level. We are coming within the orbit of American influence, and we are affected by American fluctuations. There is considerable danger after the War in being tied to American fluctuations than was the case before, and, although this may be comparatively unimportant in America, it might be very devastating here.
At the present time America, at great expense to herself, is practically burying the gold of the world, and it is costing 1150,000,000 a year. A very slight alteration in her policy with regard to the reserves might suddenly lead to cheap money and a flow of gold into this country, again causing fluctuations in our trade here. A very important financial authority stated the other day that he did not think American finance was as experienced as finance in this country, and he thought something of the kind I have indicated was quite within the bounds of possibility. Therefore, this provision is proposed in order that we shall not be in such a situation that we should bound to be subject to these influences against our will. The proposal put forward is that the Bank should not any longer be compelled to buy bullion in unlimited quantities.
Now I come to a passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech yesterday which is concerned with a very peculiar incident and one which I am not aware has had any previous precedent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself read a testimonial from an article by Mr.
Keynes, but I think it would have very much interested hon. Members if, when he read that testimonal, he had satisfied himself with regard to the whole of the article. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly clear that that testimonial was written under a misapprehension. It is quite clear that this article was written before the Bill was issued, probably or: the strength of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, and it was written under a complete misapprehension on the point which we are bringing before the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Keynes began his article by pointing out how exceedingly wise it would be to repeal Section 4 of the Bank Act, and he said if that were done it would secure us from many of the dangers to which this step is now subjected. He went on to say that since it had been done a great many of these objections had been removed. He said
:
 The Bank of England will not be allowed to give Notes for gold bullion at a fixed price. Thus our legal tender can never be worth less than its gold parity, but it may conceivably be worth more. It is a wise provision and protects us against other contingencies.
The result of that paragraph explaining that provision was that he ended up with the testimonal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted:
 If we are to return to gold the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank have tried to do so along the most prudent and far—sighted lines which are open to them." 
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has really read the whole of that article, I do not see how he could have quoted that testimonial without recognising the misrepresentation on which it was based. In these circumstances, perhaps he will see that this is a perfectly reasonable proposal, and that it will save us from many of the anxieties expressed yesterday. I suggest to him that he should consider whether the Government cannot introduce a New Clause to repeal Section 4 of the Bank Act, 1844.

Captain GAZALET: Yesterday the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said he approached this subject with considerable trepidation and another ex—Chancellor of the Exchequer said something to the same effect. In these circumstances, it will be realised with what great
diffidence I rise to offer a few brief observations. With regard to questions of high finance such as the gold standard, I have always thought that either the subject. is so difficult and intricate that it requires a long life study to speak upon it at all or that it should be considered from the commonsense point of view. I have been trying to examine this problem from the point of view, if I may use the expressive vernacular, of the man in the street. Hon. Members of the House have had opportunities in the last few months of listening to two very great authorities on this subject, Professor Keynes and Mr. McKenna—the former an international economist and theorist of world—wide repute, who is now endeavouring to put his theories into practice in the City; the latter a gentleman who has had great success in practice, and who is rapidly gaining the reputation of a theorist in these matters. I attended those two addresses and tried my best to understand them, and the two chief impressions which they left on my mind were, in the first place, that these two speakers were determined, by screens of enigmatic phrases and polysyllabic oratory, to prevent their hearers from discovering whether they themselves were in favour of a return to the gold standard or not; and the second impression that was left upon my mind was that, whatever the individual view of each of them in particular, they were at variance with each other. If such was their object, I think they were highly successful.
We have here two of the greatest living authorities differing on this subject, and not only differing, but both of them, I understand, have changed their views on the subject within the last six months; and, if these two eminent gentlemen cannot see eye to eye on this problem—if they not only differ, but have changed their points of view recently—what is left to the humble amateur? I think nothing is left to the poor amateur but to turn his mind again to the now long deserted and undisturbed realms of Bimetallism. Everyone will agree that a return to the gold standard was what everyone wanted. It was advisable; it was expedient; the only question was when it should be done. But no amount of saying that we ought to be on the gold standard, or that we want to be on the gold standard, would put us there. Nothing except this direct, imme
diate action on the part of the Government would achieve that result. No amount of Coueism, no amount of saying that on every day and in every way the pound was getting better and better and nearer the dollar, would have put us on the gold standard, although the rapid rise in the value of the pound was, I should think, a good testimony to a Cone treatment.
The Act, however, which has made the trouble conies automatically to an end this year. If only that Act had not come to an end until 1926 or 1927, we should not have had to discuss this problem today, but, unfortunately, the Act does come to an end this very year, and, therefore, the Government had at this time to declare either one way or the other; and, if the advantages of the action they have taken are not very obvious, I suggest that the disadvantages of the alternative policy of not returning to the gold standard are very obvious indeed. May I give one? We should have had to state definitely that we, as a country, were not going to return to the gold standard. What would that have entailed I I understand that, in the first place, it would have entailed the withdrawal of that very large number of bank balances which are kept in this country, in London, and which do more than anything else to make London the financial centre of the world. Those balances, which have been left to fructify and increase in this country, and which are assisting our industry, would have been withdrawn, with the subsequent consequence that our exchange would have been depreciated; and, as we were informed yesterday, that would necessarily have made our debt to America more expensive, and we should have had to pay more for all the materials which we import into this country.
I think the moment was as favourable as any other moment has been in our past history, and, although the possible disadvantages, some of which we have heard today, may be considerable, I maintain that they are nothing to the absolutely certain disadvantages which would have accrued had we done nothing, which would have been tantamount to saying that we were not going hack to the gold standard. I realise that I am trespassing on the sacred realms of high finance, and I know that, unless one has
a very large bank balance or a salary of £10,000 a year, or has written an absolutely incomprehensible book on economics, it is a grave breach of financial etiquette to trespass on these very difficult problems. I maintain that I am the disciple of no one of these impeccable pundits of pure finance. The phraseology which I understand and which appeals to me is, I fear, something on these lines, that today the pound sterling can look the dollar in the face without shame, and, in regard to that, I am reminded of a certain rhyme emanating from across the Atlantic, which runs as follows:
 In beauty I confess I'm no star, There are others more handsome by far; But my face—I don't mind it, For I keep well behind it, It's the people in front get the jar.
For a long time we have had to look at the unpleasant countenance of the dollar, but I am glad to think that today the pound can get up and sit beside the dollar on equal terms.
I cannot believe—in fact we had direct evidence yesterday bearing on this fact —that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however resourceful, courageous, ingenious and independent he may be, would have taken a serious step of this kind without the advice of the officials at the Treasury and the officials who manage the Bank of England; and I, personally, as the humble amateur who, perhaps, does not understand very much about this question, am perfectly prepared to accept their decision in the matter. Moerover, there is this further point. Supposing we were to continue to have a managed currency, who would manage it? It would be the officials at the Treasury and the officials at the bank of England—the very people who today are advising the return to the gold standard. That being the case, I accept, as I have no doubt, the majority of Members of the House will also accept, the decision of the Government with respect, humility and confidence

Mr. PETHICK—LAWRENCE: I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a couple of minutes, because said all that I have to say on the general question yesterday, hut I rise just to support what is suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees—Smith), and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give considera
tion to the point that my hon. Friend has expressed, and, in particular, to say, with regard to Mr. Keynes, that Mr. Keynes has expressly asked me to point out that the article in which he wrote that commendation was based upon a misunderstanding. That was the point upon which I endeavoured to interrupt the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, but I was unable to put it owing to his refusal to give way.
On the main issue there are three possibilities upon which the provision which my hon. Friend has suggested should be inserted, namely, the repeal of Section 4 of the Bank Act, might become operative. It is conceivable—I do not think it is likely —that the Americans might bring into effective use all their surplus stock or gold, and might thereby raise the level of prices. That might be done to such an extent as very seriously to jeopardise thu stability of prices in this country and all over the world. Another possibility is the discovery of some mine of gold very much more rich in its yield than any that we have. A third possibility, which may appear fantastic, is such a discovery in the realm of chemistry as might render it possible to produce gold on an absolutely unexpected scale. I regard all these possibilities as exceedingly unlikely, and I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, on the last Amendment on the Financial Resolution, he also regarded it as exceedingly unlikely that we should need to exceed the £60,000,000. "Nevertheless," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "in order to be quite sure that we are on the safe side, why limit the amount?" The same argument seems to apply to this case. It may be that any one of these suggestions is very unlikely to happen, but, if it were to happen, would it not be worth while

The CHAIRMAN: : I trust the hon. Member is not going to give a dissertation upon the possibilities of alchemy.

Mr. PETHICK—LAWRENCE: I have just finished; I was only working up to a final conclusion. I say that the possibilities are exceedingly unlikely, but I see no reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not arm himself now with the necessary powers in order to be able to keep prices stable in whatever unexpected circumstances might arise.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I desire to make a few observations on one point which Ido not think has yet been discussed, atany rate in my hearing, namely, the suspension for the present of the issue of ordinary coin which is referred to in Clause 1 of this Bill. I do not at all dispute the wisdom of it as a purely tem porary Measure, but I want to press up on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his skilled advisers seem rather blind to the factthat the whole basis of the value of gold is the human taste for using it as co in. If people once cease to use it as coin, the whole basis of the value of gold will be changed. It is that demand for gold as coin which is the main element in the demand for gold at all. There is,of course, also the demand for it as or nament, but that is, comparatively speaking, a small matter. If you once change the inclination of human beings,or if you suppose it to have been changed by the use of paper currency during the War and so on, to such an extent that they are no longer inclined to use coin,then the whole demand for gold in the world would be very considerably diminished, while the supply of gold would remain unchanged, and the balance between the supply and the demand would be on a very much lo wer level of value than at present it is. No doubt for a time that would not apply, because for a time the traditional value of gold would continue—people would go on thinking they liked gold even when they had forgotten for what particular reason they used to like it. If it really be true that the experience of paper during the War has changed the taste of civilised mankind and made them prefer paper notes to gold coinage, as a matter of fact as soon as people begin to adjust their ideas the value of gold will very considerably change, and it will become a very much cheaper metal, because you will not go on 5.0 P.M. with anything which is really so absurd as the provisions of this Measure, in which great hunk so gold are to be carried about, provided the are hunks. That is as absurd as if you said the basis of your currency is to be woollen stuffs, but they are never to be in a form in which they are to be available for human use, but always in the form of bales for the store. If you
made wool the basis of your currency it could only be a satisfactory basis if it were sometimes made into coats and trousers. Otherwise the desire to use wool would expire, and people would wear coats and trousers made of paper or some other substitute, and you would no longer make wool the basis of your currency. That is as true of gold. I heard the late Chancellor of the Exchequer say, on the authority of Ricardo, that it would be a good plan to have a paper currency permanently with gold as the basis of it. That is really impossible. It there is no use in gold as coinage you do not have the human desire for gold which lies at the root of the value of gold. Gold ceases to be so valuable as it was before. I press upon the Chancellor that consideration, that you must not postpone permanently, or for a large number of years, the use of gold as coinage if you propose to keep up the value of gold. If all the civilised countries in the world were going to use paper instead of gold, the value of gold would he affected. Its value would fall, the chief advantage of gold, its relative stability, would be destroyed, and the whole purpose of restoring the gold standard would be vitiated. I hope we shall go back to the wisdom of our ancestors and in a year or two restore specie payments in the ordinary way. It is a wise policy, and one that is justified by experience. But the conception that you can permanently dissever the use of gold coinage from a gold standard is a fallacy.

Lieut. — Commander KENWORTHY: : There are three ways of approaching the discussion of a Bill of this kind. One is as an expert, in which category I presume the hon. Member who opened the Debate will appear; another is the position of philosophic detachment, as exemplified by the Noble Lord who has just resumed his seat, and the third is as a Member of the House of Commons who seeks information. I think this Bill is of much importance, and I wish to put one or two questions in that character. I do not think it should go through without a certain amount of questioning, particularly as to the provisions of the first Clause. With regard to paragraph (a), dealing with the question of notes not being convertible into coins on demand—this of course touches what the Noble Lord has
spoken about—is it intended eventually to discontinue Treasury notes and to issue a Bank of England £ note and a Bank of England 10s. note? I should like to have some statement as to the Government policy, if they have a policy on the matter. I suggest that the 10s. note might eventually be dropped. It is proposed that when and if we get back to a gold coinage the 10s. piece shall not reappear. I think it will be agreed that the power of the Bank of Scotland in the past to issue the well—known Scottish £ note has been of advantage to Scottish industry and commerce. I believe it will be a great advantage if we have a Bank of England £ note more or less permanently as a means of exchange. At any rate I am inquiring as to what the Government policy is on the matter. Is it intended eventually to amalgamate the Treasury and Bank of England note, and is it intended to issue a Bank of England £ note? This is referred to in the Report of the Committee presided over by the Foreign Secretary, and I should like to know whether the Government propose to carry out its recommendations in that respect.
With regard to paragraph (c), I am not satisfied with the short answer given, perhaps rather late in the Debate, by the Financial Secretary to the question I raised yesterday as to the putting into the hands of the Bank of England alone of the monopoly of having bullion coined into sovereigns. I do not think that is altogether necessary. I do not yet see the reason for it. In his answer the right hon. Gentleman said, we want all the available gold which people are possessed of arid wish to dispose of to be brought into our gold reserve, and if we are not really establishing a gold coinage it is a waste of time to mint it. The possessor of gold can tender it to the Bank of England and have it paid in at a fixed rate, and in that way we shall reinforce our gold reserve. The gold reserve will be in bulk or in the form of sovereigns. I do not see any objection to one or the other. Suppose Jones or Brown takes gold, as he has the right to do at present under the Bank Act, 1870, to the Bank to have it coined into sovereigns. Eventually those sovereigns will come back into the banks. They may be used in circulation for some time, but he cannot export them without a licence. Why should he not have the right of
having bullion coined? Why can he only sell it for paper to the Bank, and why should this monopoly be placed solely in the hands of the Bank of England?
I should have thought it was desirable to encourage people to use gold coinage and let it be brought in gradually. I take it the policy of the Government is, if and when they can, eventually to get back to gold coinage. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Why? "] The immediate reason is that if you actually have gold coins you cannot inflate with such facility as you can by the use of the printing press. As long as you have only a paper currency it is possible to get hold of the printing press and to inflate to any extent. I do not say that this Government, or a later Government, or any other Government, would do it in the immediate future, but there would' be that danger existing, and the only safe way of maintaining a gold standard is to get back to the circulation of gold coins. [An Hon. MEMBER: "It breaks down when a crisis arises! "] In the War it is true we called in gold. Then it formed an extra reserve of gold and strengthened the currency. That is another reason why you should have gold coins. That is mentioned in the Report of the Committee presided over by the Foreign Secretary. We ought to have some statement on the point. It has not been stated from the Treasury Bench whether it is the policy of the Government eventually to get back to the use of gold coins.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure we need not add to our labours by embarking either upon a discussion whether this Government should declare its policy in regard to going back to a gold coinage or not, and still less embarking on a discussion of the unseen foundations which constitute the intrinsic value of gold. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not? "] For the very practical reason that we cannot possibly afford to go back to a gold coinage at present. There are 250,000,000 reasons against it. That sum of money, which would diminish our national wealth and credit, would be absorbed in a return to gold coins. It would mean a very heavy and altogether unwarrantable expense. We can get on quite well for internal purposes without embarking upon the reversion to a gold coinage. Everyone would like to feel sovereigns
jingling in his pocket again, and I think myself it might be possible that a certain element of personal frugality and self—denial would be stimulated by business being transacted in gold coins. People would be more chary of breaking into a sovereign than of merely passing over a Treasury note. But let the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Committee dismiss from their minds any prospect of this state of things being realised in the lifetime of the present House of Commons. We cannot afford it. We have a much longer journey to travel on the road of retrenchment and rigorous economy, saving every penny we can in every quarter, before we are able to restore our finance and our prosperity to its pre—War level. Therefore, I shall not attempt to deal with the argument of my Noble Friend, who made, as he always does, such an interesting incursion into the Debate, further than to say that I think it very doubtful whether be was not expressing a fallacy under the belief that he was propounding a truism. I do not believe that the virtue, the reputation and the intrinsic value of gold depends solely upon its use as coinage, but as a common standard to which all paper transactions can be referred for its value, its use is apparent.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Would the Government encourage the gradual return of a gold currency alongside a paper currency?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not possible to encourage a gradual return. You have either to say Bring in all these paper notes to the bank and we will give you sovereigns for them," or you have in one way or another to prevent that happening. The moment you begin to put gold into circulation you cannot tell where you will stop. For nearly 10 years no gold has been used in circulation, although there has been no law to prevent notes being exchanged for gold. That has been due, first of all, to the patriotism of the country in time of war and, secondly, to the habit which has grown up upon that foundation. I do not believe that it would be safe at the present time—that is my advice—to open the door to the turning of notes into coin, because you cannot tell where it would stop. It might become very popular and you might be exposed to a very heavy drain. I think there may be occasions when, even after the passing of this Bill, anybody who is
in need of a moderate number of sovereigns for any special purpose for which he can give good reasons would be able to get them. Broadly speaking, these are not issues which are directly raised by the present Bill.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees—Smith) raised the question of Mr. Keynes' opinions. I should be very sorry if I have done any wrong to Mr. Keynes' opinions. I read the very striking sentence in his article in which he said that although a return to the gold standard was ill—judged, if we were going to return to it this was the best way to do it. I read that not as applying to any one condition, but to four or five important conditions which have regulated us in what we have done. I read it as applying generally to the course we have adopted. If Mr. Keynes has informed the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, that his approval was only based upon his belief in the supposed repeal of Section 4 of the Act of 1844, whereas there is no such repeal in the Bill; if that is his position, then it is perfectly clear that His Majesty's Government, will have to go forward without the approval of Mr. Keynes, and we shall have to do our best in the face of that loss. If I have in any way done violence to Mr. Keynes' opinions, let me make my proper acknowledgment and excuses to the Committee.
On the merits of the question raised, I have been advised that it would greatly weaken the reality of our return to the gold standard if we repealed this provision of the Act of 1844.What is our position? It is that the bank will deliver gold to whoever demands it and tenders legal currency, and it will buy gold from whoever presents it, at fixed prices which are known, published and declared. It will do both these operations to an unlimited extent. It is said, although the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick—Lawrence) admitted that it was extremely unlikely, that gold might be forthcoming on an absolutely unexpected scale. Supposing that gold could be made by some automatic or chemical process as easily as we can make dough; supposing a great mountain of gold is suddenly discovered that has been hitherto overlooked on the earth's surface in the various searches which have been made
for geographical and natural purposes; supposing enormous quantities of gold were hurled upon us, poured upon us from every quarter; supposing through any of these causes we were being smothered under an avalanche of gold, I say without hesitation that we should have to legislate. I hope the Committee will now give us this first Clause, because we have other Clauses which require discussion, and it would be well to spend our time as conveniently as possible in the discussion

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has given us an example of the very thing which earlier in the afternoon I feared. Whenever he leaves the larger question and tries to give an explanation on points which are certainly not clear to the Committee, he does not give a full explanation. He has not given us an explanation of the reason why Paragraphs (a) and (b) are inserted in the Bill. As I understand it, Paragraph (a) puts an end to the right of the individual to go to the Bank of England with a five—pound note and to get five sovereigns for it. The right hon. Gentleman has not shown that right up to the present time that right has been abused. Paragraph (b) puts an end to the right of a person possessing the Treasury one—pound note to go to the bank arid get a golden sovereign for it. Why should it have been necessary to put an end to these two rights of the individual? They have not been abused. I have no such fear as that expressed by the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil). I do not believe that the sovereign coin will become so popular as to drive the paper sovereign out of existence. In Scotland the two things circulate together, and they have just as keen a sense of the value of money in Scotland as we have in England
For a great many purposes paper money is much more convenient than coin. Let me give one example. For carriage it is very much more convenient. In some parts of the world where the British one pound note is the popular currency, no man sending his ship abroad would think of sending £500 with which to pay port disbursements in golden sovereigns. He very much prefers sending the money in paper. Although there is a certain happiness which accrues to any man who jingles the sovereigns in his pocket, there is no doubt that for ordinary convenience
the paper pound is a very popular piece of money. If the right hon. Gentleman feared that there was going to be a sudden change because of the passing of this Bill, and that people who have been perfectly satisfied with the one pound note were suddenly going to go back again to the golden sovereign, I daresay it would be necessary to safeguard our gold standard against that very sudden drain.
There is a great deal to be said for using our gold in more economic ways than in coin, for the golden coin has worn out. The wastage of the coin has been considerable. Was that really the reason that the right hon. Gentleman had for inserting this paragraph in the Bill? Was it because of the wastage of the gold in use, or was it because he feared that if this Bill became law there would suddenly be what was not the experience during the last few years, a run on the golden sovereign in preference to paper money? If that was the reason, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have explained it to the Committee

Mr. CHURCHILL: Why should I have explained it to the Committee I was answering certain specific points raised in the Debate. I was not giving a dissertation on gold coinage. Among the points raised, I was not asked why paragraphs (a) or (b) were put in. I could easily have said why. The reason is simple. Although the public have abstained in war time and since through the habit contracted in war time from making inconvenient demands for gold from the Bank, although they had the right to do so, I have no guarantee that that would continue in the face of our public declaration that we have returned to the gold standard. I was by no means sure that in certain quarters parties who are opposed to this policy and interested in stultifying this policy might not by publicity or in other ways encourage a demand upon the Bank for sovereigns which at this moment, when we need our gold reserves in a compact form, would have been highly inconvenient. After careful consideration, and after consultation with the banks throughout the country, we decided that it was advisable not to continue the present process, and that it was far better that in these circumstances what had long been the practice and habit of the country should, for the time being at least, become its law

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, but I would remind him that the point was put in a specific question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.—Commander Ben—worthy). He put the question in almost the same form as I did, and perhaps a little more tersely. The point that has been elucidated by the right hon. Gentleman is one which the Committee had a right to expect. I presume that when lie right hon. Gentleman is explaining the return of the go1d standard he is not going to think it incumbent upon him merely to answer questions put to him and to leave unexplained a very important matter like this which affects not only every tradesman, but every individual.
I think the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps a little too apprehensive about public opinion. Public opinion in these matters is not so easily influenced by mischievous people, or even by mischievous journals. We have become. so accustomed to dealing with large quantities of paper money, and it has become the habit of such large numbers of people that I do not think they are likely to change their habits out of mere caprice. The right hon. Gentleman in making these changes is showing, for the first time in this transaction, a slight lack of faith in his own policy. He has been bold in every other respect, but here he has shown a slight nervousness, which is not one of his characteristics. It would have been better for him to have left this alone. There would have been no leakage, and no serious harm would have been done. I doubt very much whether he gains anything by this new provision in his Bill.
As far as the supply of gold is concerned, there is much more likely to be a shortage in the world than an oversupply. Whenever we suffer from an undue shortage or an undue supply the House is quite capable of giving the necessary support to any Chancellor of the Exchequer who asks for fresh powers. We do not need to anticipate that. Nothing is likely to happen in the next 23 or 25 years which will upset our currency policy. The best way of dealing with the currency of this country, inside as well as outside, is by taking the bold course of showing that we have complete
faith in our own strength, and that our currency is not likely to suffer by what happens outside

CLAUSE 2.—(Power for Treasury to borrow for exchange operations)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. DALTON: I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to the general policy which is raised in Clause 2. Borrowing for exchange operations is a very third—rate financial expedient. It is an expedient which was applied in war when we were hard put to it, and it is the kind of expedient tried in France. Although we have had a great deal to learn from France in other matters pertaining to civilisation, we have nothing to learn from France in financial expedients. One of the reasons why unemployment has been increasing in the past few months, is because sterling has been over valued on the foreign exchanges, and that largely because of speculation created by the anticipation that we were going back to the gold standard in this way. It is because the pound is worth more in terms of foreign currencies than in terms of goods and services in this country that our export traders are in such great difficulties. There is a good deal of statistical evidence that that is so. Statistical evidence was given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in reply to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick—Lawrenee) the other day. Other statistical evidence is also available.
At the present moment the unsheltered trade of which we hear a great deal is unsheltered chiefly because of the external value of the pound, and our export trade finds great difficulty in getting foreign orders. We cannot quote competitive prices in foreign markets owing to the exchange handicap to which we are subject by the very high valuation of the £ in the foreign exchanges. My objection to this Clause is that it tends to perpetuate that state of things, and to prevent the possibility of any speedy remedy for it. You are going to endeavour to maintain your exchange at an artificially high level by borrowing. You are going to pay your way by borrowing
instead of exporting. That is how you are going to balance your account if you can call it balancing. I submit that that is thoroughly unsound finance, and I have not yet heard in Debate any satisfactory justification of it.
Furthermore—and this is the final point that I wish to put on the general question—borrowing' in order to maintain the exchange is essentially unsound, because in the end you have to pay back more than you borrow. I would like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the arrangements are for payment in respect of Pierpont Morgan and tho other persons with whom he has been in negotiation. Whatever he is going to pay, the position will be the usual one of borrowing and spending if the borrowing process becomes necessary. If there is no borrowing this argument falls to the ground. Let it be remembered that just as this borrowing may relieve our exchange at the moment, and may enable our exchange to be maintained at a higher rate than that at which it would be maintained apart from the borrowing, there will very likely be subsequent and stronger pressure in an opposite direction on the exchange, because your exchange will then be burdened not only by payment of a capital sum, but by repayment of interest.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I made it perfectly clear in the Budget speech, and also yesterday, that we do not intend using these credits except in the last resort. T agree with what has been said by the hon. Member who spoke last as to the unsound character of a policy which relies upon such credits at the very time when you are trying to stabilise the exchange. It is, I might say, a contradiction in terms, but we were advised, having regard to the conditions attending the transition and the risks attending the movement from one state of affairs to another, that it would be a valuable insurance to call into being these credits on the other side of the Atlantic, and a warning to speculators to have this immense credit behind the British exchange. It is as a precaution, not as a necessary measure of stabilisation, but as a contingent precaution that this policy has been adopted, and it was considered that it was an essential part of the method for resuming the gold standard.
As to the provision which has been made for this the Federal Reserve Bank has promised to lend 200,000,000 dollars to the Bank of England on the credit of the British Exchequer, but no commission arises there. Therefore the interest referred to by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will only come into play, if and when, and according as, the credit is required. So far as our negotiations with Messrs Morgan are concerned, those are limited to 100,000,000 dollars, on which 1¼ per cent. commission will be paid during the first year of the credit, and, if the credit is not used, half the amount will be payable in the second year. That is to say, there will be £250,000 payable the first year, and half that the second year, or £375,000 in all. But I regard this as in the nature of a precaution against dangers and difficulties which we do not believe will arise, and which we de not believe are so likely to arise, because of the precautions which we have taken.

Miss WILKINSON: I think that the Chancellor in his reply hardly dealt with one rather important question which was raised by my colleague behind me. That was as to the effect of the Chancellor's operations on employment in this country. I feel very diffident in intervening in this Debate on the gold standard, but I do so as representing an area which is rapidly becoming a famine area, because it simply cannot export the heavy steel which it makes, because it finds itself blocked in nearly all the markets of Europe, not because its work is not as good as ever it was, but because it is competing against other countries where the exchange is rather more depreciated. For example, we have very heavy competition from Belgium, in Asia Minor and the East, as against the products of the North—East Coast. I would ask the Chancellor whether in making these arrangements he has not had in mind much more the needs and the interests of the big financiers of this and of other countries, who are making an extraordinarily good thing, it seems to me, out of our return to the gold standard, and forgetting very largely that we do ultimately depend upon our export trade for keeping our people at work.
It seems to me that these unsheltered trades are going to be attacked by the change in two ways. First the Chancellor's gold policy will not enable them to export their goods, and it will therefore create unemployment, and then the Chancellor's insurance policy comes along and says, "You people coming for unemployment benefit have got to be told off." There is this point. We are debating here a certain policy that is going to make it increasingly difficult for our people to get work, and going to make it increasingly difficult for us to export our goods in order to obtain what seems to me to be this very expensive luxury of a gold standard. I feel that we are paying a very high price for the smiles of the financiers of America. Looking at the matter from the point of view of common sense, however charming it may be to see the flirtation between the dollar and the pound, the question of getting our people to work is a much more serious one, and I would wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given much more careful consideration to the point raised by the hon. Member

Clause 3 (Short Title)ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time "

Mr. PETHICK—LAWRENCE: I have no intention of opposing or delaying the passage of this Bill, but there is one point which I desire to put before it finally becomes law. Our objection has been mainly the fear that this transaction may result in placing this country in the position of either having to reduce its prices or lose what it retains of the markets of the world. The point that I wish to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is: Did he consider this alternative policy in endeavouring to restore the gold standard? Admittedly, the American Government and financial authorities were anxious that we should go back to the gold standard. That is shown by the fact that they have met us by offering to give us a credit of 200,000,000 dollars. It is admitted that the Governor of the Bank of England went to America to arrange terms by
which this transaction might be carried through. Was this position put to the Government of the United States and the financial authorities: "You are anxious that we should go back to the gold standard. If you will call into play some of the gold which you are at present keeping without using in the vaults of your banks, you will bring about a rise in price level in America, and thereby will bring about automatically a return of our exchange to its pre—War parity. If you do that we will agree to go back to the gold standard. If you do not do that you are forcing upon us a return to the gold standard which can only be achieved by a further deflation, which in the present condition of our industries will cause further unemployment." I would ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer put that proposition to the Governor of the Bank of England and asked him to put it to the American Government and financial authorities before taking this step? A second question which I would put is this: Is it part of the understanding today that some slight measure of the same kind will actually take place in the United, States?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A slight measure of what?

Mr. PETHICK—LAWRENCE: Is it a portion of the arrangement that the American financial authorities will do something of that kind, that is, that they will bring into active operation some of their gold reserves, and thereby bring about that slight increase in American prices which will obviate the necessity of our having to reduce our prices in order to keep the exchange at parity? I want to know how far he has done that. If I thought he had done that even secretly, and that that was going to happen, it would remove a very large part of the anxiety which I and my friends feel.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: Before the Debate ends, there is one more question which I wish to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a very simple question. We are all, or very nearly all on this side of the House, rejoicing at this Bill. Some of us have been particularly rejoiced at the last statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that reasonable people going to the Bank and showing good cause why they should be given small sums in gold, might, at the
option of the Bank, very probably get them. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer regard this as the excellent beginning of a great end, when we shall some day—all dangers of corners in gold and rushes on the Bank being over—get back to the happy old state of affairs before 1914, when we shall once more have the clash of the gold scales on the bank counter, giving pleasure to the ear, instead of waiting for long minutes while the bank accountant spends time in counting out 237 or 542 Bradburys twice over? Are we to look forward to the time when we shall have the good old gold standard back and no longer see an anæmic St. George of impossible anatomy endeavouring with a very inadequate weapon to cope with a dragon whose anatomy in equal ways suggests that he is not very competent for the ends for which dragons are made, since his legs are much too short for attack and his body too stout for his legs to bear, and his general appearance that of a most inoffensive creature?
I long for the day when the Treasury Notes shall all have disappeared, when no longer will one have a Treasury Note that has been to the butcher and bears on its corner the mark of a bloody thumb, suggesting some awful story of Sherlock Holmes, nor the Banknote that has dropped into the butter pot, nor the Banknote that has been folded into sixteen by a lady and put into a small nurse, nor one that has been rammed into the pockets of the drover at the market and appears as a crushed mass All these are:esthetic horrors to which we are daily subject, not to speak, in addition, of the Treasury Note that sails through the window of the railway booking office and has to be retrieved by the booking clerk. When the good old sovereign comes back all these evils will be over. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer promise us that there is a, good day coming? I do not ask for it now, but will he, if he can, help it? He is a very bold man. Will he tell us that we can look forward to the day when we shall have the good old sovereign circulated once more?

Mr. WALLHEAD:: I want to preface my few remarks, as others before me have done, by the statement that I do not pose as an expert in currency. I can at least observe. I want to echo the fears of some
of my friends that this is a continuance of the policy of deflation begun some years ago with such disastrous effects in this country. The moment it was known that the Coalition Government proposed to, back the policy adumbrated by the Cunliffe Committee, we have had in this country nothing but continual slump, and the curious thing has been that great economists have noted that during the course of the slump the shares of the Bank of England have enhanced in value by £90 per share, and that the value of the shares of the various banks making up the Big Five have also advanced proportionately. It is curious to note that during this period, since deflation began, when this country has been passing through an unparalleled period of depression, when bankruptcy has faced thousands and thousands of our traders and unemployment has been knocking at the doors of millions of our workers, when millions of our people are still unemployed and poverty and penury are the lot of more than one cares to think about. the bankers of the country have reaped a richer harvest than ever before in the history of banking institutions. So big have their profits become that they have attempted to do the best they can to cover them up by proceeding with the most palatial buildings that architects could devise for the purpose of carrying out their operations.
I am aware that yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was no question of a conflict as between the bankers' policy and the traders' policy. But the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), speaking for the Federation of British Industries, flatly contradicted that statement, and said that the Federation of British Industries viewed with alarm the course that the Government proposes to take. It appears to me that this is nothing but a continuation of the policy of undoubted piracy that was begun by the financiers some years ago. If it had been pointed out or recommended, at the time when this Cunliffe Report was adopted, that the debts of the country were to be scaled down, one could have understood it. Mr. Bonar Law declared in this House, when Premier, I believe, that one of the results of deflation had been that the National Debt was in effect increased from
£8,000,000,000 to £16,000,000,000, and as a matter of fact that the rate of interest, owing to the fall in prices, had risen from, roughly, 5 per cent., to practically 8½. per cent. During the course of this deflation, of which this is a continuation, workmen have had their wages reduced by £700,000,000 per annum in this country, and they have been told that they could bear the reduction because prices were falling and the purchasing power of money was rising. If it is good for the workman to take lower wages because prices fall, why is it not good that a lower rate of interest should be paid on an inflated debt. After all, the interest is used for the purpose of commodities just as wages are. That is a question which deserves serious consideration.
It appears to me that the Government have rushed this question. Instead of announcing, as they did, that a return to the sterling standard would take place the moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced it a few days ago, an inquiry should have been set up, and at least the period should have been deferred for some little time in order that we might have taken stock as to whither we were tending. I suppose there will be no Division on this Motion, but I want to enter my protest against the policy that is being pursued. I protest against the policy of financial grab that is pursued. If the scaling down of the National Debt had been in accord with the deflation of currency, the Debt would have stood today at £4,000,000,000 instead of £7,500,000,000. But there would have been no report from the Cunliffe Committee if that had been the case, because it was a bankers' committee and not a traders' committee. Another thing which I have heard with some consternation this afternoon is that it really matters whether we have gold or paper. An hon. Friend has declared in favour of a return to gold at the earliest possible moment. I remember that in the first week of August, 1914, this metal, which is now regarded as the most stable thing on which to base a currency, or the one thing that would stand the test, was the one thing that ran away the moment that a crisis came. Instead of finding that gold was a stable thing, we found it was the weakest thing that it was possible to imagine. It had to be replaced with paper, not based on gold so much as upon
the fact that the working men of this country were going to work the next morning.
That really was the basis of the credit of the country and the way in which the War was carried on. Now, because of the alterations that took place during that period, we are faced with enormous debts which will become automatically bigger because of the policy that the Government is adopting. I protest against the policy. If there were a Division I would go into the Lobby cheerfully and vote against any further deflation or any return to the gold standard. I do not believe that gold as a currency is at all equal to a scientific currency operated, not by private bankers who are interested in raising the value of their shares and the piling up of profits, but credit based on the nation's credit scientifically controlled by the State.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I wish to ask one question. I understand that we have two options in America, one with the Federal Reserve Bank or Board, and the other with Messrs. Morgan. Would it be possible to carry out the full option with the Federal Reserve Bank and save Messrs. Morgan's commission? I put that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a business man. The commission is 1¼ per cent., and it runs into a rather large figure for the first year.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I certainly would be the last to intervene in this Debate because of any claim to particular knowledge of this most important and intricate question. I was very much taken with the phrase used by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he described this business as a mystery. It was a mysterious business which he was endeavouring to explain. It suggests to my mind the conjurer who carries through some very clever tricks, and very few of his audience know how they are done, though everyone knows that they are done. That is how I feel in this case. With all due deference, I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would appreciate that reference, from the point of view that he does exercise with considerable dexterity the part of the conjurer. The right hon. Member far Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) stated yesterday, as a Member with a very specialised knowledge of the subject, that if he said all that could be said on this proposal his speech would take hours. That state
ment intensifies my view that there is something wrong about this business. I tried a member of the Ministry yesterday. I asked how matters stood and what he really thought.He held his hand above his head and said,"By God,I swear this is the best thing we can do!"That was intended to have a 6.0.P.M considerable imperssion upon me. Still we discussed the matter in detail. My views run largely on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). When we view the present situation from the standpoint of the real active producers of wealth in the country, it must strike every reasonable mind that the system upon which we are operating financially does not work out in the interests of those who are making that contribution to the wealth of the nation. I wish to introduce an excerpt from a paper which formerly, at any rate, had a very considerable appreciation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, the "Dundee Advertiser." That paper has more than once expressed a very definite view of this matter, and I ask the House to contemplate the expression of opinion contained in the following passage
:
 For our part we become more certain every day that while there may be times and circumstances in which it will be to our advantage to adopt the gold standard, our present wisdom is to hold on our course. There are two lines of reasons for it that appear to us decisive. We have annually to pay to America a tribute of £35,000,000 and we must pay it by purchasing dollars. The easier the terms on which we can do it the better. At present, with the fall in the value of the gold dollar, the terms become easier every day. Therefore, we should avoid any action which will raise the value of the dollar. If we can do anything to accelerate its fall we should do it. There are good authorities who believe that if we go on our course the exchange will go to six dollars to the £ yet and that will be equivalent to reducing the debt by a third. We can assist the process by pumping gold into America in payment, thereby accentuating the gold inflation now bringing the dollar down. But if we re establish the gold standard and the free market for gold the instant effect will be to send the dollar up by vastly enlarging the market for the gold now glutting the vaults of the American banks. If gold was made as valuable as it was in 1914 the payment of the American debt would cost us nearly 40 per cent. more than it does and if we restore the British free market for gold we shall take a big step in that direction.
There appears a view which, notwithstanding the specific references made by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to other nationalities and Dominions following in this course, shows that after all the real driving power in these cases is one and the same. It is the financial power in each central nationality which is driving on every Government including our own, and, in fact, the "Advertiser" specifically states that this is what is happening. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is being guided in this matter by the financial strength of the country. If we consider the situation as it existed in the course of the War we know that a handful of individuals represented the financial strength of the country, but those who represent the financial strength of the world can deal with the world as if it were a small village. There we have the governing factor by which the nations of the world are being driven, and the argument produced in this article is that while our policy is endeavouring to get more consonance with the policy of the American nation, that the two nations in this matter really have interests at variance with each other. That was controverted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his elaborate statement. He believes this change will work out beneficially.
The one thing about which I feel satisfied is that although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hill head expresses the view that there will be an improved situation in certain phases of our commercial life, for the body of the toilers the position is thoroughly adverse. We are not in safe hands. We are not in the hands of those who would guide the policy of our Government and of other Governments with a view to the common weal and to the mass interest but we are in the hands of those who would guide that policy for class interest of which we hear so often. That class interest is denied by hon. Members opposite, but its existence is transparently evident. We have heard the Prime Minister say that we should not have all this talk about class interests and that we should all stand or fall together. In this connection we do not stand or fall together because while a policy of this nature is followed, you can have on the one hand the strengthening and buttressing of a numerically weak but financially predominant power, while on the other band the mass interest is weakened and set
aside. That is the view which strikes one very keenly in considering the wonderful picture drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. The right hon. Gentleman told us that what was required was dealing with the weak, the struggling and the suffering, and one could almost see tears being shed on the other side for those who have gone under. Where do they come in under this proposal? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer here and now operating in this business conscientiously, with no other aim or object than that of finding the requisite sustenance and help for the weak to the widow and the orphan and the unemployed? There is one central point for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider. It is the financial power which uses our Governments and the members thereof as puppets, and that is the position as it stands today.

Sir FRANK MEYER: I intervene in this Debate with some trepidation, because, like most other speakers, I do not profess to be an expert in these matters. But I should like to say how much I welcome the step taken by the Government in returning to the gold standard, and how cordially I applaud all the safeguards with which they have hedged round that very difficult operation. In the course of this Debate the point which struck me most forcibly was the inconsistency of the attitude of the opposition on this question. The leaders of the party opposite, as represented by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, appear to desire to have the best of both worlds. They cordially welcome the principle, while they condemn the way in which the operation is being carried out. If I may quote from a work known to all of us in our youth, it is the old case of
 Jam yesterday, jam to—morrow, but never jam today.
At the same time while they are welcoming the principle, we have statements by many members of the party which they lead condemning that principle. There is no doubt that the hon. Members for Merthyr (Mr. Wellhead), Peckham (Mr. Dalton), and the hon. lady the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), have condemned the principle. If they say that the effect of returning to the gold standard and the restoration of our currency to parity of exchange, is
going to bring about unemployment, then they are frankly and openly advocating inflation. You cannot say you are going to deprive people of employment by putting your exchange on a parity, without indicating that the lower the rate of exchange is the more employment there will be and the logical conclusion of the arguments of hon. Members on the Back Benches opposite is that we should pursue a policy of inflation similar to that pursued by other countries on the Continent. If they are prepared to follow up that policy logically, we on this side will be very glad to challenge them upon it when the results of the present operation are more clearly seen in a year or two years.
While this subject has already been very fully discussed, one point has been brought out in the Debate which I should like to emphasise. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), for whose business experience and ability I have the very highest admiration, contended that the banking interest and the trading interest of this country were opposed on the question of returning to the gold standard. It has even been said in this House, by Members of the Labour party, that it is to the interests of the banks that there should be a high Bank rate and high rates for money. That is a point of view which I, for one, most strongly dispute. Bankers do not make any higher profit when the Bank rate is high than when it is low, because bankers' profits are represented by the margin or difference between what they allow on deposits and what they charge for loans, and that difference is not greater when the rate is high than when the rate is low. Moreover, very large profits are made by financiers and the banking interest during a time of fluctuating exchanges. It is not the bankers and financiers who lose during a time of fluctuating exchanges, but the traders, and those profits would cease under a stable currency, which would be infinitely better for the traders. It. is quite absurd, however, to suggest that a return to stability and the necessity for occasionally increasing the Bank rate can bring any extra profit to the bankers.
The point was raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr that the banks made enormous profits during the period of deflation. Does the hon. Member realise the hundreds of thousands of share
holders there are in the great banks of this country and the hundreds of thousands of depositors? The people who made profits, if profits were made by the policy of deflation, were not those to whom he referred as the bankers—I do not know whether he referred to the individual directors or not—but the hundreds of thousands of depositors and holders of shares in the banks. I am quite aware that these people are looked upon with suspicion by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and so long as they look with suspicion upon those members of the population—whom they would harass if they had the power—so long will they fail to get the confidence of that class, and without the confidence of that class, even though they have the support of very large numbers of the working—class population, I do not think they will find themselves again in power. I thank the House for having allowed me to express my cordial approval of the policy of the Government in returning to the gold standard

Mr.STEPHEN: I have listened to this Debate with a great deal of interest. I am interested in the question of the return to the gold standard, and, like so many others, I have been amazed at the complicated nature of the problems which this question presents to us. Consequently, I have waited before taking any part in the Debate, because I have been very anxious to be convinced, but, in spite of all that the experts in the House have said, and in spite of the exceedingly lucid statement, from the point of view of a layman, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put before us yesterday, I still feel that there are a great many things that it is very difficult for the ordinary individual to understand. Having heard and read the speeches of hon. Members, however, I have come to the. conclusion that we at this time are making a very great mistake in going back to the gold standard. It seems to me that we are trusting rather to something material, and giving the guidance to something outside of reason.
Like the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead), I believe it is far better to have a scientifically—managed currency than that we should go back to the gold standard. It seems to me that there has been a great deal of superstition and myth in connection with this whole ques
tion, and that the Government is, in its policy, adhering to the doctrine of a myth rather than striking out boldly and seeking to put this whole question of currency upon a scientific basis. There are various things in connection with it that have amazed me. In connection with the credit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got as a reserve in America, I wonder if he could tell us, before the Bill leaves us, how much Morgans are going to get

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already stated it.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am sorry; I did not hear it. I heard his statement that there was a sum of £400,000 odd.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will tell the hon. Member. There is 1½ per cent. commission on 100,000,000 dollars for the first year, and half that sum,if the credit is not used, in the second year, making a total of £375,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Federal Reserve? "] The Federal Reserve have made a separate arrangement with the Bank of England, in which commission plays no part.

Mr. STEPHEN: One of the things in this connection that amazes me is that we have our currencies and our credits arranged on such a basis that the British Empire, with its extraordinary resources and tremendous wealth, should be dependent upon a private corporation in America to keep it from getting into difficulties with regard to its currency. To me, that is an amazing position. if we go back to the gold standard, we are putting ourselves to a very large extent in the power of the grand magnates in connection with the provision of gold. All those countries that go back to the gold standard put themselves into the power of a very limited number of people who have got control over this commodity, gold. It seems to me there is something essentially unreasonable in the statesmen of the world putting their various countries into that position.
I do not suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have any answer to the next point that I wish to put, because it is in the nature of prophecy, and I quite agree with the old statement that you cannot answer a prophet, but I think that we are going to have, as a
result of this return to the gold standard, a great increase in the amount of unemployment in the country, and I believe that the Chancellor himself has certain misgivings in his mind in this connection, because of the statement that he was making, when he was interrupted in the House the other day, that there was the necessity of seeing that people should not get into the dole habit. I believe that you are going to have a restriction of credit resulting from our going back to the gold standard at this stage, and that is going to mean a great deal of suffering among the ordinary working class folks in the country. To my mind, this question should have been brought into a real relationship with what is the greatest burden upon our industry at the present time. Sometimes hon. Members speak as if the great burdens upon industry in this country were the wages and the hours of the workers, hut, to my mind, the one great burden upon our industry is the tremendous load of debt that the country is carrying, and the tremendous burden of interest that the country has to find in connection with that debt.
I believe that we are acting most precipitately in going back to the gold standard. It is going to be a good thing for the people who are able to levy a toll upon the community, because of their title to money, that title which is theirs because of the loans that the Government have obtained from time to time. It is going to be good for all those people with a title to money, but I believe that the consequences to industry as a whole are going to be adverse in the extreme. I think the protests that were made in the course of the Debate about the way in which we were going to be shackled to American finance were thoroughly justified, and I do not think the Chancellor really made out any case at all, when he suggested that, instead, we were going to be shackled to reality. I do not believe there is any reality at all in this gold standard. I do not believe that it is anything more than a myth or a superstition, that the people in control of money have zealously fostered from time to time. When the War came, we discovered that we had to get away from a lot of the myths and superstitions, and we got away from the gold standard, but now we are going back to it, and it is going to mean that the people who did well out of the
War, the people who profiteered and all those who have a title to money, are going to get their values improved, and that at the expense of a great and increasing amount of unemployment in the country.
If the hon. Member for Merthyr challenges a Division on this matter, I am sure there are a good many of us in this party who will go into the Lobby with him. Complaint has been made that so many of our leaders have accepted the principle, and agreed that it is advisable, at some time or other, to go back to the gold standard. Those of us who believe that there is so much that is mythical about this precious yellow standard would be willing to be convinced if we had seen the Government dealing with this great burden of debt previous to dealing with this question of the currency. Consequently, I think it is as well that a protest should be made, even at this late hour of the day, in connection with the action of the Govern ment, which, I admit, to an extent has been supported by so many members of our own party, sincerely and conscientiously, because they think, as the Government no doubt do, that it is in the best interests of the whole community.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are today putting the coping stone on the great policy of deflation. This Bill, if passed, ends the controversy that has been understood by so few, and read by so many, during the last seven years. today we return to the gold standard. Depreciation ends, and inflation ends. If there is one thing that I object to more than deflation, it is inflation. Both are methods of juggling with the currency. Personally, I am a stabiliser, and I always shall be. We all know how easy it would be to cure unemployment for a time by inflating the currency. We have not done it. If we wanted to stop unemployment at once in this country, it would be quite easy to do. All that you would have to do would be to set your printing presses at work and let everybody in this country—man. woman and child—have a nice new "Bradbury" every Saturday morning. If you only did that, if we could only persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be really generous with the printing press, there would be any amount of employment—for a time. Confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer would wane, I am bound to admit, but confidence in the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has already been sorely shaken. However, we know quite well that inflation through the Government printing press, as practised in Germany, is no good. The question is, whether deflation is much better?
I said I was a stabilisero, and if I could believe that we were now genuinely on a parity with the dollar, and that we were stabilising today on an honest basis, I should say: "Go back to the gold standard." But that does not alter the fact that for the last eight years, in getting to a stable basis, in getting to dollar parity, the whole of that policy has been of enormous benefit to the rentier class in this country. I dare say we could not have helped it, but, for goodness sake, let us recognise it. Everybody who lent money, shareholders, debenture holders, preference holders, all the people with fixed incomes, have benefited by deflation. There is no doubt about it, and today deflation is alleged to have reached a point where we are on a parity with the dollar, and may safely stabilise on the gold basis. That may be so, but I am a little doubtful as to whether the real value of the £ today is accurately represented by the dollar exchange. It is undoubted that the financial influences in this country have had a great deal to do with the rise in the £ value. Anyone who has read day after day, as I have, the articles of the City editor of the "Times" will have seen what a constant push there has been towards attaining this dollar parity.
I think we ought to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer before we vote today some sort of insight into the financial operations which have brought about this dollar parity, and the cost of those financial operations. He told us, when he was opening his Budget, that he had bought in advance 166,000,000 dollars, or, roughly, the full interest in advance on our debt to America. He admitted at Question time that he had bought in advance, and that he already had in hand the whole amount for the December payment, although, under normal circumstances, it would not have been required until later on. He has bought dollars when the pound was low, and, as he admitted at Question time today, the country has made a financial sacrifice to acquire those dollars before they were definitely needed, and if he had bought them today, with the dollar
standing at the price it is, he would have been enabled to buy much cheaper. Therefore, the country as a whole has been put to a considerable financial sacrifice. He could not tell me the figure, but he said that, if this sacrifice had not been made, purchasers of raw material during the fall would have had to pay more, and that the Exchequer has paid to save the pockets of the people who will buy the raw materials later on. If that be so, let us know roughly what we are paying for it. What we want to know is, what is the difference between the present price at which those 166,000,000 dollars stand—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I gave what was necessarily a very rough estimate to the House of the cost of the purchase of those dollars, but —the right hon. and gallant Member was not in his place at the time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: At any rate, it comes to this, that we have been paying considerable sums in order to restore the pound to a dollar parity, so as to effect stabilisation at parity. That is all very well, and it may justify us in coming on to the gold basis, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we have got to see now whether it is a genuine parity, or whether, when this Bill is passed into law, we shall find our gold reserves melting away. Even today, the pound is standing below the dollar parity, so that there is a direct incentive to export gold from this country at the present moment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The export of gold is determined by the gold point.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: And the import of gold by another gold point. Parity must be the guiding factor, but directly a point is reached at which it pays to export to America, we may have a demand for the gold of this country. £30,000 was shipped the day before yesterday. If that goes on, or if it increases, the inevitable result will be that the Bank of England will have to put up its Bank rate in order to retain the gold in this country, and every time the Bank of England puts up its Bank rate, it becomes more difficult for enterprise in this country. Every time the Bank rate is put up, people in the building trade, who live on overdrafts, find it more difficult, more expensive, to carry
on, and production is restricted. That applies to every industry in the country. Every factory that is putting up a new wing, or putting in new machinery, is checked by a higher Bank rate, and before the Government brought in this Bill, they ought to have been absolutely certain that there would be no risk of this increase in the Bank rate in order to secure the return to the gold standard.
The House will remember that only about two months ago the Bank rate was raised from 4 to 5 per cent. At the time many people thought that rise in the Bank rate was intended to assist the restoration of gold parity. It worked in that direction. Shall we have a series of further rises in the Bank rate in order to sacrifice the industries of this country to the fetish of the gold standard? As I say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We cannot tell whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen the right moment or not to get back to the gold standard, because nobody but he knows what operations have taken place in order to raise the pound to the level at which it stands today. If it has been at the expense of this country that gold parity has been obtained, then I fear there can be no doubt but that continued assistance will have to be given in the way of borrowing dollars, or in other ways, if we are to avoid the draining of our gold reserves and the consequent rise in the Bank rate which follows. The party to which I belong are not opposed to stabilising the currency. We are not opposed to getting back to a gold standard, provided no deflation is involved; but we are opposed to taking these risks, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely certain that there is no risk of the Bank rate being raised by reason of this Act of Parliament, and thereby the interest of the industries of this country suffer from an increased cost of that which is essential to production, and which we want to have as cheap as possible in order to make production as cheap as possible.

Mr. BASIL PETO: I want to say a few words from the point of view of one who has been engaged in productive industries for, at any rate, forty years past. I could not help feeling a certain response in my mind to the opening words of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). He claimed to have an open mind on the subject. He said, as a matter of
fact, our financial system, in his opinion, always worked against the interest of the producing class. I do not propose for a moment to dogmatise on one side or the other, but I do view with suspicion any proposal, so far as the producers of the country are concerned, when I see it advocated by international financiers, the bill-broking and banking community. It makes me a little doubtful about the phrase the Chancellor of the Exchequer used yesterday, in which he said that the proposals in this Bill were not going to shackle us to the United States but to reality—a phrase worthy of the occasion, and no doubt happily chosen. But when you work it out, what does it actually mean? It means that we are shackled to gold. That is the reality in this Bill, and I want to be quite sure that we are not going to see the producing industries of this country shackled to international finance, and to those whose interests are purely financial. I am reminded of the old phrase, that there is nothing like leather. It is natural for people producing boots to think there is nothing like leather, and it is also natural for financiers to think there is nothing like gold. It is the raw material of their industry; it is that out of which they make their money, but it is not the raw material out of which this country makes its wealth.
We who have been connected with productive industries in this country for the past 40 years can recall well the alternate periods of boom and depression happening regularly at intervals, roughly, of from seven to ten years, and we can always remember that just when the factories got thoroughly well going, when employment was increasing, and the like, the Bank rate, by that mysterious process, the working of which we do not know, was invariably put up, and the boom disappeared and unemployment began. We have had these alternate ups and downs so often that we are forced to believe that they are something in the nature of cause and effect, and I think I am not putting it too high in saying that the producers in this country, while not opposed to the gold standard, regard this as a nostrum with a certain amount of suspicion, based on their own experience during a large number of years. It seems to me that whenever we had, as I say, a boom towards the end of the last century and the early part of this century, imme
diately we had the Old Woman of Thread-needle Street, like the Fates of old with their shears, determined to cut it off and to nip it in the bud.
I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is really convinced that the reactions to a rise in the Bank rate, which he mentioned in the House yesterday, are really the reactions that are most important to the producing community in this country. He said that it tended to prevent speculation, particularly in food. The recent rise in the Bank rate produced a cheaper 4lb. loaf, and it certainly produced a reduction in the price of Government securities. That, broadly, is perfectly true. A rise in the Bank rate, as we know from experience, also curtails productive industry, as it has again and again in this country, at the same time as it curtails speculation. I do not believe you can divorce the two things from one another. Speculation, no doubt, particularly in foodstuff, is not a desirable form of enterprise, but it is a form of enterprise, gone to seed perhaps, that you cannot check without checking productive enterprise 'also. I quite realise it may be said that a gold standard from the point of view of the producer has certain disadvantages, and we had better put up with the evils we know of, than go into the unknown evils which await those who believe in a managed currency. That may be quite true, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put it too high, in painting a picture of what will happen if only we have the gold standard, and, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carmarthen said, logically from the argument. of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we ought to have a rise in the Bank rate every week
It is not on those grounds that we can support, as I certainly do, the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is because, if we are to have a managed currency, we shall have a managed currency in every European country, and they will not be managed on the same lines. There is no international power which will say that you have to manage your currency in a particular fashion. Once you go into that, you have no stable means of exchange between one country and another. I do think that we ought very carefully to watch the operations of this return to the gold standard. It is just as well, perhaps, for the House to
realise that it is impossible always to put the interests of the financier—which are not by any means always the interests of the producer—first, and to say that we should remain quiet because everything is going to be all right in the trade of the country once we return to the gold standard.

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS CONTINUATION)BILL.

As amended (in the Standing committee,),considered.

Two new Clauses (Power of local authority to determine operation of Acts),and (Power of local authority to continue operation of Acts)stood on the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE.

CLAUSE 1.—(Prolongation of 10 and 11 Geo. 5, c. 17, and Part 11 of 13 and 14 Geo. 5,c.32.)

The following Amendments stood on the Order Paper:

In page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words,

" except in so far as amended by Section 2 of Part I of the Act of 1923."—[Mr. T. Thomson.]

In page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words,

" except as determined according to Section 2 of this Act."—[Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The proposed new Clauses of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) are beyond the scope of the Bill, —and therefore are out of order. The Amendment of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) is also out of order, as not coming within the Title of the Bill, and for the same reason the proposed Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Albans is also out of order.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Might I, Mr. Speaker, respectfully draw your attention to the fact that in Committee the present paragraph (b) in Subsection (3) of the Clause was inserted as an Amendment.? That amended the Act of 1923. All my Amendment seeks to do is also to amend the Act of 1923. Might I ask you, if the one is in Order, why the other is not within the scope of the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was good enough to draw my attention to that point, but I must say that I agree with the Chairman of Committee upstairs that, on Report, consequential Amendments do not properly come within the scope of the Bill.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. DENNIS HERBERT:: In page 1, line 8, after the word "force," to insert the words
 For the following periods, that is to say, so far as it applies to mortgages until the twentyfifth day of December, nineteen hundred and twentyfive, and in all other respects.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is also out of order.

Mr. HERBERT: Might I respectfully ask you, Sir, whether my Amendment has been ruled out of order on the same lines as the others, because as it is drawn, it is strictly, as I supposed, within order, in view of its dealing only with the periods of the continuation of the Act?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is just one of those points which I had under consideration. The point was put to me at the time of the Second Reading. I then gave a ruling that, unless the House passed an Instruction, the Committee could not deal with this Amendment, among others. An Instruction was moved, and the House decided against it. Therefore, that point has been made quite clear.

Mr. HERBERT: If my memory serves me rightly, that Instruction did not deal with this particular question of the mortgage provisions at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite true, but if the point had been put to me at that time, I should have given a similar ruling, in view of the decision on the Instruction.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I on that point, ask you, Sir, if seeing the definition is merely to prolong the duration, and my Amendment is simply to qualify or extend that prolongation, my Amendment to define the period is not in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am dealing with specific points, and not with the general matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment would be distinctly an Amedment of the Act which we are now proposing to continue for a period. What I have said in regard to the other Amendments necessarily also applies to his.

Mr. HERBERT: May I very respectfully suggest that this Bill itself prolongs the Act, and not merely for one whole specific period of years, but for one period for England and another period for Scotland? If the Bill can do that under its Title, surely under the Title we can continue the Bill for one period in regard to one portion and another period for another portion of the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: The reason for that provision in relation to the two countries was that in Scotland the quarter day is different. The present Bill only continues that differentiation.
The following Amendments stood on the Order Paper:
In page 1, line 8, leave out the word "twentyfifth," and insert instead thereof the word "twentyfourth."—[Mr. T.THOMSON]
In page 1, line 9, leave out the word "December," and insert instead thereof the word "June."—[Captain Bean.]
In page 1, line 9, leave out the word "twentyseven,"and insert instead thereof the word" thirty."—[Mr. Fenby.]

Mr. SPEAKER: I think these three Amendments should be taken together. They are one proposal, namely, to lengthen the period of extension by a further two and a half years. If that be the case, they can be moved and debated as one

Mr. THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 1, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words,
 Twentyfifth day of December, nineteen hundred and twentyseven,
and to insert instead thereof the words,
 twentyfourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty.
The meaning of this is to extend the period for five years, instead of the two and a half years which appears in the Bill. I submit that the Government on the Second Reading gave us no reason why this particular period should be inserted. There is no virtue in it. The Minister of Health—if I may say so—seemed to glory in the fact that he had no information or data available in order to give a reason for any very definite date. I submit, if it is not possible to fix the date when decontrol shall come to an end, at the same time it is possible to fix a date at which the control shall not come to an end. Undoubtedy, in the face of all the information which we have —such as it is—control could not come to an end at the date proposed in the Bill, because there is no certainty of belief that the present existing shortage of houses will have come to an end.
The Minister told us upstairs that his desire was that control should cease at the earliest possible. date. I presume a great many people will agree with him on that point, provided the doing away with control will not bring hardship and suffering to a large number in the community. I submit to him, however, that there is going to be a very large amount of uncertainty, and a very large amount of hardship and risk involved, if this Bill passesin its present form.It is all very well for us who have houses—or possibly houses which are not in special demand—to think lightly of the question of uncertainty which haunts so many of those living in controlled houses. It is very desirable at this stage to put in a date on which there is a reasonable prospect of the present shortage being made good. All the circumstances which were pointed out on the passage of the original Bill to protect the tenant apply, I submit, with greater force today. The shortage of 1919 was given, I think, by all parties, and certainly by the then Minister of Health, at half a million. The shortage to day is practically the same. What has been done in the meantime has not really reduced the total shortage which was then in existence. I was told by the Minister of Health, in reply to a question some little time ago, that the total number of houses built under the various
Acts—the two Acts of 1919, the Act of 1923, and the Act of 1924, amounted to 284,352 up to the 1st April. To that you have to add now the houses built quite apart from the State subsidy. No figures, I understand, are available as to these, but it has been estimated variously that they number something like half the number built by subsidy. Supposing we say 150,000 houses. This will give us a total of something less than 450,000 houses built since our national housing programme started. This may seem a large number on the face of it, but I would remind the House that that does not wipe out the balance. It is merely sufficient to make good the normal demand year by year. We must remember that since the Armistice five and a half years have passed, and for that period you would require normally 80,000 to 90,000 houses in order to cope with the normal wastage and increase of the population.
What we have done up to the present, I submit to the Minister, has been merely to build sufficient houses to meet the normal yearly demand. Consequently, the shortage of half a million houses, admitted at the time of the Armistice, is untouched. Until there is some reasonable chance of this half million houses being found, there is still the haunting dread of the tenants of being turned out as soon as decontrol takes place. Until, therefore, there is a reasonable prospect of these houses being built, it is foolish to fix any definite date when decontrol shall take place. We want at least another half a million of houses. There is no chance of getting these within the next five years. Taking the most favourable conditions of production, and their increase from one cause or another, suppose we get up to 150,000 houses, or considerably in excess of what we have done up to the present, still it will take five years, because we have to build 80,000 houses a year to make good the normal requirements.
These figures are altogether apart from the houses which are needed to make good the slums which are a haunting nightmare in our large towns. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has big visions of a big slum campaign. The whole House will encourage him in his efforts in that direction. That, how
ever, means the closing of more houses before you can do that, and you must build in excess of previous years. Therefore, in view of all these reasons, to suggest that in two and a half years you will be able to effect decontrol is not to the point! The Minister has told us that., if needed, the Act can be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That is leaving the matter in a very uncertain and indefinite condition. We know that as long as the shortage continues there will be uncertainty amongst occupiers, tenants, and owners, and that pressure may be brought to bear by agents and landlords as the period of decontrol draws near. I submit, if we are to have regard to the security that we all desire should be permanent, and that feeling of confidence which should be in existence in the minds of those who occupy houses, we should not do anything that would give them cause to fear that they are likely to be disturbed. They feel at the present time that there is a sword hanging over their heads, because they may be threatened with being 7.0 P.M. Minister can today follow the suggestion of the Amendment. If the Amendment that was moved from these benches when the 1923 Act was passing through the House had been accepted, there would not have been any need for this Bill today. It is impossible within the limited period prescribed in the Bill to fulfil the needs of the people. Another reason is one that will appeal to all of us. Five years will take the period well beyond the next General Election, and one knows it is not very desirable that the extension or otherwise of the Rent Restrictions Act should be made a question of party conflict in the heat of an election. It is very much better that we should fix the period now, when we are able to reconsider it in the calmer atmosphere. I hope the Minister may see his way to extend the period, unless he can say definitely that he is satisfied that the number of houses that will be built between now and two and a half years will be enough to provide for the shortage. I think you can say definitely that in two and a half years' time there is no reasonable chance of those houses being built, and consequently there is no reason why decontrol should come to an end in two and a half years' time.
Continuation by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act creates uncertainty every year. Uncertainty is bad. There is nothing which makes material for the agitator more than uncertainty in connection with housing. We want to give security and confidence. If you put in the five years suggested in the Amendment, you would give a certain measure of confidence and security to those most in need.

Mr. STEPHEN: I was rising to a point of order that we should take all these Amendments together. I myself am of opinion that we should have a much longer time than the five years suggested by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson)

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member's Amendment be rejected, that will settle the question of the period. I should not entertain a Motion to differentiate Scotland from England further than it is already differentiated in the existing Bill. As I said just now, it is due to the difference in the quarter day. If the House should decide to leave out 1927, then it will go on to insert either the period suggested by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) or the other period proposed by the hon. Gentleman himself. If the House affirm the 25th day of September, 1927, that will settle the matter.

Mr. MACLEAN: In each of these three Amendments you have not only got a proposal to leave out certain dates and months, but you have also a proposal to insert others in their place. Do I understand that you are taking as part of the Amendment the proposal to insert other dates? If that is taken it means that these Amendments will cover all the Amendments on the Paper subsequent to those which also have dates to leave out and to insert others. If we take this discussion not so much upon the insertion of dates but on the question of leaving out of the Bill proposals that are already in the Bill, it will leave it open to the House, if that he carried, to insert any date that it thinks fit. Do I take it that is your ruling?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, that is so. I propose to put those three Amendments as one in this form, "To leave out the twentyfifth day of December, 1927," in order to insert "the twentyfourth day of June, 1930.' That is the form. If the
House reject the words in the Bill, then it will be open to the House further to divide on the year 1930 and the year 1940

Mr. STEPHEN: I think that in the interval since this Bill was in Committee the right hon. Gentleman in charge may have had his heart a little bit softened with regard to the needs of the people in this connection. The House has had to deal with this position on various other occasions, and evidently the Minister contemplates that it may be necessary, when the 2½years have expired, that further provision should be made. The result of such a line of thought is that the people who are affected by this Measure are left in a state of uncertainty. All the time the sword is hanging over their heads. What is going to happen in 2½ years? Unless there is an improvement with regard to the provision of houses, a great many will have to face the position of a Government in trouble with regard to time, and with regard to dissensions' which will no doubt occur during those 21 years. The domestic troubles which will take place within their own family and within their own party may make it impossible for the Government to deal with the situation at the end of 2½ years. So far as we in tins House have seen, there is nothing farfetched in the picture I have Arawn of the possibility of internal conflict among hon. Members opposite.
In Committee I ventured to suggest to the Minister that, seeing that we have got to deal with this question so often, the time has really come for him to adopt a different view point, to apply those imaginative gifts of his and his capacity for taking a broad view of the situation, to change the position entirely, and to take a long period of time. The period of time I would suggest to him is the fifteen years contemplated by the measure which was passed by his predecessor last year with regard to the provision of houses for the people. Take this period and make the people safe for fifteen years. Give them an assurance that during this fifteen years, unless the building trade and the various authorities are able to provide houses in sufficient number to take away the monopoly character that the property owners have got at the present time, they have got security in their homes.
If the Minister is able to be as successful as we all hope he is going to be, and if he is going to accelerate the
rate of building houses; if we are going to have here, there, and everywhere throughout the country every district getting its quota and getting houses in sufficient number to allow of this legislation being done without, then it is a simple matter for him to come to the House of Commons and say. "We have provided, say, a million houses, and we feel that now that these million houses have been provided it is possible for us to remove the control that is in operation at the present time." Then nobody will have a grievance. As it stands, it is a case of grievances all the time. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) suggested that the present condition makes an opportunity for the agitator and the disturber of the peace. I agree. Consequently, I suggest to the Minister that he should take this opportunity of making agitation and the disturbance of the peace in this connection an impossibility by giving this measure of security to the tenant. In this House I do not suppose there is a great number of Members who are livingin controlled houses. Personally, in Glasgow I do live in a controlled house. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] I know it is a shame, but I cannot help it. Past Governments have made such poor attempts to deal with the housing question. I do not want to rub it in to the Minister and his predecessors who have had power in this country for so long. It is also a bigger shame that people in the same position as myself should have all this anxiety, and that people in this House who have no anxiety themselves should vote and administer the Government in this House in such a way as to bring this anxiety to people like myself and people who are living in controlled houses.
There is another point. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough suggested that if the advice had been taken on the 1923 Amendment that was proposed, the Minister would not have been coming to the House today with this Measure. That may be true. If he suggests that in two and a half years the Government will be coming with a section in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill dealing with this matter, and that if he would only take his advice, that would not need to occur for five years, then I say let us still make it 15. Why should he have
to come in five years? Let us get a decent period. Turn the whole thing round about. Give the tenants control—[Laughter.]—Hon. Members laugh. You would not laugh if you were threatened with eviction at the end of two and a half years. You would be out leading a revolution. I say give the tenant security for 15 years. Then, when you prove that you are in earnest with regard to the provision of houses, when you have provided a million or so, you will have some right to come and say, "Well, now we have got all these houses, it is only fair that the tenants and the property owners should be put in a certain position."
Personally, I believe control should be continued long after 15 years and quite apart from the number of houses. I make that frank acknowledgment to the Minister. I believe it is a good principle, the principle of control. I believe it is the Socialist principle, and so I stand for keeping on control, but I am not hopeful of persuading the Minister to that extent. I am only asking the Minister to try to view the matter from the point of view of the tenant who has only got this very brief term of security. I myself believe property owners would feel they were put. into a better position by being given this long period, with the knowledge that control would be lifted when the monopoly character of property owning which exists at the present time is removed. In the name of humanity I appeal to the Minister to take the broad view of this important matter, and to give to hundreds of thousands of his fellow—citizens the sense of security every householder ought. to have in a country which is supposed to be free.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The hon. and reverend Member (Mr. Stephen) who has just sat down—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Order"]

Mr. SPEAKER: We do not employ that title here.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The hon. Member has appealed for an indefinite extension of rent and mortgage control. If he had been a Member of the Departmental Committee which considered this question he would, apparently, have been at variance with the members of his party who took part in the Committee and
issued a Minority Report. Their proposal was that rent restriction should be prolonged until 1930; the idea of its being continued indefinitely was very far from their thoughts, anyhow, as put down on paper. They made no suggestion that control was good; on the contrary, they arrived at the general conclusion which I should have said, everybody who studies the subject comes to, that control is against the best interests of all concerned, and is a definite and serious obstacle to the building of houses, and that the Rent Restrictions Bill is necessary to meet only a temporary need in order, on the one hand, to protect people against exploitation and, on the other hand, to provide against landlords not having enough money with which to carry out repairs. It is a well balanced and well thought out Measure to meet the emergency of the moment.
If there is to be a real solution of this problem, the suggestion to prolong interminably this Act is one which, in the interest of all classes, cannot be maintained, and will have no backing in the country. I say clearly and definitely that what we want, in the interests of all parties, is to get back to free trade in houses. That;s the end we are all aiming at. The idea is to have free trade in housing, that is, such a provision of houses as will not only supply the needs of the community, but also furnish the necessary margin of vacancies—to the extent of 5 per cent.—which will enable people to pick and choose, allowing a tenant to give notice, if he thinks the house he is occupying is not good enough,. in the knowledge that there is a sufficient variety of other houses for him to choose from. That would be an incentive to builders to provide a sufficient variety of houses, and the competition amongst them would bring rents down. That would be the sound solution of the housing problem, and it is what we want to get back to.
The question comes back to this: Are we now at the point where we can abandon this protection which was imposed originally in the War? We are not in that position, and His Majesty's Government do not suggest that we are. They propose that this Act shall be prolonged—despite what has been said, for I could quote the Minister as to the desirability
of getting back at the earliest possible moment to a free market in housing. But we are not in a, position to do that today, and we must prolong the Act, and that is the purpose of this Bill. Shall we prolong it for another five years, as is suggested by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thompson)? I think if you take the basis on which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough argued the matter, there is no question, at any rate there is very little question, that it would be necessary to prolong the Act until 1930. The hon. Member for Middles. brough, quite rightly, points out that the shortage of housing is not likely to be made up by 1930, and it is on the shortage of housing that this question is to be decided.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health definitely argued on the Second Reading that until the shortage was overcome we must prolong this restriction. If that argument, which he used, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the AttorneyGeneral used, and which has been the basis of arguments on this Bill, were taken as the general measure of the need for the continuance of the Rent Restrictions Act, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough has got his case clearly before him that this Measure will require to be continued until 1930. But the hon. Member for Middlesbrough is not differentiating between different parts of the country. I cannot go into the Amendment which, by some process that I am unable to comprehend, was ruled out of order in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order "] I say I cannot understand why. It has been ruled out of order, and I do not dispute the ruling, arid I am not going into it. At the same time, that leaves me, and my friends who agree with me as to the solution of the problem, in this quandary, that if we are to argue from the point of view from which the Minister has argued it, I see no prospect of release in 1930, or later.
With the slums that there are in Glasgow, and with the appalling conditions in Glasgow which have been described to us over and over again, can we have any hope that the provision of houses will overcome the shortage in Glasgow by 1930? The same consideration applies in the East End of London. Can we believe that the shortage of housing in the East
End of London will be overcome by 1930? I wish I could believe it. We cannot believe it. The existing conditions in the great cities cannot be relieved in that way. I confess myself as being uneasy with regard to the continuation of this rent restriction. It is stopping housing, and it will continue to stop housing, although in a diminishing degree, and in the interest of the tenants I want to see it removed, and yet, on the other hand, again in the interests of the tenant, cannot see it removed yet—
What are we to do? I think the argument is clear that we must carry it on for a short time. To revive the question year by year all over the— country would not give security, and therefore I believe we shall have to prolong restriction until 1927. But I hope that when we get to 1927 we shall be able to relieve a large number of areas in this country that are alrea,dly ripe to be relieved of this burden, and who at present are saddled with this burden purely for the sake of the larger towns. The great mass of rural districts in this country are already ripe—the great mass, not all, by any means, but a great number of them—to be relieved of this intolerable burden. One of the members of the Government who at the time was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health said in Committee upstairs two years ago that his own constituency of Hastings was already desirous of being free of this incubus. "Why," he asked, "should we be saddled with this for the sake of the slums of Birmingham and Glasgow?" I believe, therefore, we must retain in our hands in 1927 the power to apply some more convenient and more sensible solution of the present problem. When that time comes, I hope my friends on this side and on that side of the House will be behind me. in support of an Amendment such as that I have referred to, and that if we cannot introduce it, into the Bill the Minister himself will introduce it into the Bill in 1927, that is, will introduce some method that will enable us to vary this incubus, this obstacle to housing according to the needs of different parts of the country. Do not let us prolong control till 1930, and so prevent our having a free hand to deal with the matter in 1927.

Mr. BRIANT: Many of us must have heard with some amazement the speech
of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle). I wish he had been a little more clear about those happy districts of England which are supplied, or almost supplied, with houses. He mentioned one only, Hastings. I know Hastings fairly intimately, and I know its slums, and I should be surprised if there is alternative accommodation existing for the dwellers in those slums. I cannot think of a single place, in all my wanderings in England, of which that can be said. Since —he made the statement, he ought to have supplied us with the names of a few of those paradises where this happy condition of things exists. I have not met one, and he apparently is not able to quote even one of his own knowledge, but only cites a statement from some other Member who says Hastings is happily provided with houses. If he could have given us more information, we should have had an opportunity of examining it and analysing it.
I do not share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Stephen) about control. I am not looking forward to control in perpetuity, as I think it would be bad for the tenants and for the country, but we have a right to ask the Government by what process of reasoning they have arrived at the conclusion that two and a half years from now will be the precise time for the removal of control. What makes them say two and a half years? We know that Ministers are sometimes unduly optimistic, and I do not know a single person outside this House who imagines the shortage will be met in two—and—a—half years, and I cannot believe that Ministers, with all the optimism which they must have to enable them to keep their positions, can believe or will assert that two—and—a—half years will be a sufficient time in which to meet the shortage. If not, why not make a reasonable extension?
The constant revival of the threat of eviction at the end of these short periods only makes matters infinitely worse. It is far better that people should know they have a fair number of years in front of them than that they should be warned constantly that at the end of a short period they will be again threatened with being turned out of their houses, or at
least that a very much higher rent will be extracted from them. Already some landlords, and I am not attacking landlords as a class, are trying to get round the Act in order to get their tenants out by all sorts of subterfuge. You cannot get any tenants to realise that two and a—half years will be a, sufficient period during which all their fears and anxieties will be removed. There is not a person either inside or outside of this House who believes that a period of two and a—half years will be sufficient to solve the housing problem. The Government cannot persuade us that this question will be settled in that period, and I cannot believe that the audacity of any hon. Member opposite will enable him to make such a statement as that.
The Government ought to realise that there cannot possibly be any advantage in proposing such a short period as twoand—a—half years, and such proposals as these do not help in any way to solve this problem. If hon. Members who want decontrol do not believe that it can possibly come at the end of two and a—half years, what is their object in supporting a proposal of this kind. I am not one who believes that even Socialism will solve this question, neither do I believe that houses will never be decontrolled. I have had some practical experience and knowledge of the conditions of housing, and I ask the Minister of Health does he believe it is possible to decontrol houses at the end of two and a—half years. At least, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make the period five years, and thus give more stability and security to the tenants, and let them feel that they are safe from eviction and from the extortion of an enormous rent for a little longer period. I hope the Minister of Health will see his way to accept this reasonable proposal, which will go some distance to meet the needs of the present situation.

Mr. SHORT: I am going to support the proposal which has been made in favour of this extended period. Having regard to the fall in political stock due to the introduction of an ill—advised and ill—balanced Budget, the right hon. Gentleman cannot do better than seek to restore that political stock, and incidentally his own reputation, by accepting the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T.
Thomson). No one will deny that the lack of housing accommodation in this country is deplorable. Not only is it deplorable but it is increasing with some measure of rapidity, and we appear unable to overtake either the deficiency which existed after the War or the increasing shortage. Population has increased, slum property and slum areas have increased and corporations and municipalities find themselves in the difficult position of being unable to enforce their own closing orders. That is a most unfortunate position for local authorities to be in.
In my own constituency, I observe that the local authority has just put into operation a closing order. Under great protest, culminating in a great agitation, all the families have been ejected, and they are now residing in some adult schoolroom belonging to a neighbouring church. I find that the standard of room accommodation per person or family, particularly in the Black Country, is lower after the census of 1921 than it was after the census of 1911. If we accept the very low standard of accommodation obtaining in 1911, if we have to admit that the standard of room accommodation has decreased despite all our efforts, it behoves the House of Commons to be serious about these matters. This is the evidence founded upon our own investigations that has been brought to our knowledge by the census returns, and it shows that there has been a lowering in the standard of room accommodation.
Let me give another example. I think the estimated shortage in 1919 was from 800 to 1,000 for Wednesbury alone, which is only one—third of my Parliamentary constituency. We have built 300 houses there since 1911. It is quite true that we have just commenced another scheme of 32 houses, and to do that we have had to take over a recreation ground from the children. We have not built houses to meet the deficiency that existed in 1919. What about the increase in the shortage of housing accommodation that has taken place since 1919, due possibly to the demolition of houses for industrial purposes, to increased population, marriages, and so forth? Is it suggested by any reasonable Member of this House that through housing activities the building of houses either by private enterprise or municipalities, whether under
the Bill of 1923 or 1924, we are going to overtake the deficiency throughout the country by 1927? I do not believe there is a Member in the House of Commons, not even the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who believes that we are going to overtake that deficiency or the growing shortage in two and a half years
If we leave the year 1927 in the Bill it will only produce doubt and suspicion in the minds of tenants, and this is being done merely to satisfy the ambitions and desires of a handful of landlords. If that is not so, I do not know of any other reason. I expected something bigger and better from the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary than what has been proposed. I do not believe even they seriously suggest that we are going to overcome the shortage in housing by 1927. With the evidence in our possession I do not believe we are going to achieve that end by 1930. I hope we are, and if I had as much faith in the Government as I have in working men and working women I should think that was possible, but unfortunately I have not.
Let us approach the consideration of this question in regard to the evidence. The Parliamentary Secretary founds his case invariably upon evidence, and it is not much use proceeding otherwise unless it can be done through the oratory of some brilliant King's Counsel, and the evidence must be sound. What evidence is there that we shall he able to overcome this shortage in two and a—half years? —Under these circumstances I urge a reconsideration of this matter in accordance with the evidence, and if that is done, putting on one side all prejudice, political and otherwise, I am satisfied that the Minister of Health will agree to accept this Amendment at least in the form in which it has been moved by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to add my voice in favour of the proposal for an extension of the period provided in this Bill. I make no excuse for referring for the 150th time to the slums of Glasgow. I do not see any Scottish Office representatives present, but if they were here they would bear me out in regard to the facts as they exist in the City of Glasgow.
During the six-and-and-a-half years since the War the Glasgow Corporation has built a little over 5,000 houses or less than 1,000 a year. What do we find alongside of that state of things? In 1918, 13,000 houses were certified by the sanitary authority as being unfit for human habitation. Here you have 13,000 houses in 1918 declared unfit for the people to live in, and we have only built in the intervening period of six-and-a-half years 5,000 houses, and yet we are told that all we need to carry on this work in Glasgow is an extension of this Act for the next two-and-a-half years. Although we have been building houses for five or six years since the War, that has only accounted for the natural increase of the population. Not a single one has been built for slum clearance, or to provide for the demolition of old houses, nor has a single one been built to allow for the normal extension of the city.
Again, there is an evil that is constantly possible in a great city. Take what happened recently in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). There was a fire, and there was actually no surplus of houses, as there ought to be, in which people in an industrial area could be housed when a fire or any other tragedy of that kind occurs. I want to put it to the Minister of Health that there is not a single place in Scotland that I know of, rural or industrial, where within two or three years there is the slightest hope of decontrol of the houses being possible. I want to put to the Minister, also, another view which I think ought to weigh with him. He, with many others, thinks, I believe, that subjects of this kind ought to be taken out of the political arena—that the question of solving our housing difficulties ought not to be the subject of discussion or fighting between one side and the other. But let me put to him the probable state of affairs in regard to what he is now proposing.
In two and a half years his Bill will lapse, and it will be either renewed or not renewed as the Government then in power think fit. In the course of another two or three years, however, the possibilities, even in the normal course of events, are that a General Election will occur, and the party that is prepared to go out—you can call it bribery if you like, or by
any other name—and say to the electors, "We will pledge for five years," or "We will not pledge for five years," the party that can make the best appeal in that way will possibly obtain the larger number of votes. Why should a problem that we know will not be solved in two and a half years be exposed to the luck of a political ballot on one side or the other? Why should not the Government say, apart from election promises, "Here is a problem which we know will last a considerable time," and allow us to fight our elections in the future without handing out guarantees for 5, 10 or 15 years? Here is a Government with a considerable majority, with power to make or unmake la was as they desire; why do not they come forward, with those great powers, and lift this whole question from the arena of political fighting and the influence of general elections?
In my view even five years is too short. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) knows, as I know, that in Middlesbrough the problem will not he anything like solved in five years. Why should we make it five years when we know that it will not be solved at the end of that time—that even at the end of 15 years it will not be solved unless housing is speeded up? At any rate, with normal foresight, no one can expect it to he solved in less than 15 years. Therefore, we say that, in suggesting 15 years, we are making a very mild proposal. Glasgow ought to have over 10,000 houses, and at the rate at which we are going it will take far longer than 15 years to provide that number, never mind the normal excess of population. It may be that in that period we shall develop new methods of construction and more adaptable methods, but that will not be obtained in two and a—half or even five years, though it may be possible within a longer period like 15 years. All that will be done, if this Bill is to be extended and re—extended, will be to have the whole issue again fought out as to whether the extensions should be for three years or some other period, or whether control should continue or not.
Those who have taken part in them know how elections are won and lost, and how views on popular issues, or strong feelings on the part of electors, may carry a Government in or put them out.
Suppose that the issue is Socialism. It might be unpopular and might carry defeat for us, or, on the other hand, it might carry us to victory; but, assuming that it carried defeat, why should the electors voting on that issue be also, possibly, bound on an issue as to decontrol on which they themselves had given no specific vote at all We know that sometimes that can occur. The Minister knows that in Birmingham, for instance, not even the faintest hope is held out that the problem of control will have ended in two and a—half years, nor can even Woolwich, grand place as it is, hope to solve its difficulties in two and a—half years. In my view we ought to allow at least 15 years, but I am sure my colleagues would be prepared to compromise on, say, 10 years at least. I only hope that the Minister, with his knowledge of the conditions, will agree to extending the period much beyond even the five years asked for by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough.

Major RUGGLES—BRISE: As most of the remarks in this Debate have fallen from hon. Members who represent urban districts, I should like to say a word or two from the rural, the agricultural point of view. Looking back into the history of the Rent Restriction Acts, it is not too much to say that there never was any necessity for the inclusion of purely rural areas within the scope of the Acts at all, and the harm which has been done to the agricultural worker through that inclusion is very difficult to overtake. The situation in rural areas, at the time when the first Rent Restriction Act was passed, was so utterly different from that in urban areas that it was a complete anomaly to try to include two such completely different sets of circumstances within the scope of one Bill. What was the situation? In the rural areas we had cottages inhabited by our agricultural workers, let at rents as low as is., Is. 6d., or sometimes 2s. per week, with a considerable garden thrown in. That may have been quite as much—indeed, it was as much—as the agricultural worker was able to afford, but the fact remains that the agricultural workers living in those cottages in rural areas had other advantages in the fact that they were able to live near to their work. At all events, it will be agreed that the rents paid were reasonable. But for similar accommodation in an urban area the rent
would probably have been something between 15s. and 30s. a week, and, therefore, there was every excuse for a Rent Restriction Act dealing with rents in urban areas. That necessity did not, however, obtain in rural areas.
What has been the result? The position now is that cottages built in the first instance and intended for occupation by agricultural workers are inhabited at this moment, or a very large proportion of them—I will say too large a proportion—by people who are not agricultural workers at all. In many instances, when the agricultural worker was called up for service during the War, his wife, perchance, maybe with a child, went to live temporarily with her own parents. The cottage became vacant, and immediately some town settler, attracted by the low scale of rents obtaining in the rural area, left his more expensive and less comfortable dwelling in the town, and came and occupied the cottage in the country. For the time no harm was done, but, as soon as the War was over, and the agricultural worker came back to his village and wanted to go back to his own cottage near his work, he found it occupied by someone else, who, probably, had migrated from the town in order to finish the evening of their life in the country. The fact remains that it is impossible to get that cottage of the agricultural worker out of the possession of someone who really comes from the town.
There is a great shortage of cottages in many of our rural districts, and one of the reasons that is making that shortage more acute is, that in many cases these cottages are not being inhabited by the right people for whom they are intended. The worker in the agricultural industry receives the lowest rate of wage of all industries, and, therefore, it is absolutely essential that we should see that the lowest—rented house should be made available for him, and that that house should be as near as possible to his work. I would plead that a reasonable measure of de—control be given to local authorities in rural areas. I support the plea of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), although I do not do so on quite the same grounds. I would plead that in this Bill local authorities in rural districts should be given power, after giving due
and sufficient notice, to give release from control to the houses in their area. I do so in order to try to assist the agricultural worker to come back to his own village, to his own surroundings, in many cases to his own home, and on this ground I hope the Government may be able to give some consideration to my plea

Mr. LINDLEY: I have listened with some attention and with considerable astonishment to some of the arguments advanced in opposition to this Amendment. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans sLieut.-Colonel Fremantle) who stated that the continued application of the Rent Restrictions Act would either retard or prevent the building of houses, but before allowing such an argument to pass, it would be well to examine it. Is it true, is it well founded, or is it untrue and ill—founded? Is there a single new house being built today that would be affected by the continued application of the control given by the Rent Restrictions Act? Is it not true to say that, if I were to continue building houses from today onwards, if the Act remained as it is now framed, I should be able to charge any rent that I cared to charge for the houses recently erected? Instead of retarding the 8.0 P.M. building of houses, I think the continued application of the Rent Restrictions Act would actually stimulate the building of new houses, inasmuch as it would leave the owners of those new houses free to charge such rents as they chose and they would not be subject to the application of the Act. After all, the purpose of the Act is to prevent particularly working—class tenants from exploitation by unscrupulous landlords. The landlords of the new houses would not be subject to restriction, and if it can be shown that houses can be built to let at a profit—built to let at uncontrolled rents—then I think there is no justification whatever for saying the continuation of the Rent Restrictions Act would have the effect of either retarding or preventing the building of houses.
But it is interesting to note that we have had decreasing wages for all the craftsmen, ail the semi—skilled and all the unskilled workers simultaneously with the increase of the rents of the houses those workers have occupied, and after all if we are going to have peace we must pay
some attention to the needs of the people who are receiving the very lowest rates of wages in the lower paid industries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down mentioned the wages paid in the agricultural industry, and claimed that they were the lowest wages being paid to the workers. In my Division we recently had an industrial dispute and, according to the local newspaper reports, there were 8,000 people involved in it. They were in dispute because they felt that the wages paid in the iron and steel producing industries were too low for them to obtain a living. They were being paid from 28s. to 32s. 6d. for a week of 47 hours, and many of these men were not able to work a full week. In many instances they were only able to work three or four days, and very few indeed were able to work the whole five and ahalf days. These people, if they got married, were fortunate if they became the tenants of new houses the rents of which were anything from Ils. to 18s. per week. Imagine any of the right hon. Gentlemen who form the British Government drawing a wage of 28s. to ns. 6d. and being called upon to pay lls. or 18s. a week for rent. Many hon. Members of this House pay more for a bottle of burgundy to take home to their wives than these men draw for a week's wages. The workers consider that if they are called upon to pay big rents their wages should be increased in such a manner as to enable them to pay those rents. The continued application of the Rent Restrictions Act is one of those things that is necessary not merely 9in the interests of the workers but in the interests of the peace of the country. Are you going to continue to allow property owners to exploit the needs of the people and, when a house becomes decontrolled, as it does in the ease of a change of tenant, to increase the rent not by 40 per cent. but. often by cent. per cent.? If so, instead of making for peace you are going to create that feeling which has been deplored so often on every platform by almost every member of the Government and by every supporter of it, which we are told goes to the making of communists, extremists, rebels and so forth. I think I should be a rebel if I were called upon to pay 11s. a week rent out of a wage of 28s. to 32s. 6d. It simply cannot be done
The Amendment seeks to extend the period to five years. It has been suggested that the period should be 15 years. Even at the end of 15 years the probability is that there will still be a shortage of houses. If the shortage is no longer there, if the houses necessary to meet the requirements of the people have been built, circumstances will adjust themselves and it is immaterial whether this Act is continued for two and a—half, five, seven or 70 years. There is no need to bring an amending Bill before the House at some future date. The landlords will find that the people have sufficient houses and they will he unable to charge extortionate rents. The whole thing will adjust itself as soon as ever we can obtain a sufficient number of houses to meet the requirements of our own people. I hope the Minister in charge of the Bill will give some consideration to the needs of those people who are being harassed every day, who are very often being told things which are altogether untrue by unscrupulous landlords in order that greater rents may be extorted from them. If we can but get something definite, something substantial in the way of an extension, I am sure it will be worth while and that there will be a greater measure of peace among the workers than there can possibly he if the Rent Restrictions Act is either going to be mutilated or withdrawn. There has been a great deal of feeling manifested because if and when a change of tenancy takes place the house becomes decontrolled and the landlord is at liberty to do whatever he likes with it. That would never have occurred if, when the Labour Government was in office, they had also had the power to bring in certain Amendments which were necessary to protect the interests of our people. But the time is fast approaching, and our friends in the Opposition are doing very much indeed to help along the day, when the people will have the sense to return in sufficiently large numbers to the House of Commons those who have been controlled by the Rent Restrictions Act, those who, like one hon. Member who has spoken, live in controlled houses and know exactly the difficulty of the people who are concerned in this matter. I thank the House for the indulgence shown to me on the first occasion I have addressed it.

The MINISTER "of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have waited what I hope hon. Members opposite will consider a reasonable time in order that I might get a fairly complete idea of the sort of arguments which were to be adduced in favour of the Amendment, and I am very happy that I have deferred my intervention, as it has given me the opportunity of hearing the speech to which we have just listened, I think the first speech the hon. Member has addressed in the House, the impression made by which upon my mind was that he knew exactly what it was he wanted to say and that he had no difficulty in finding appropriate language in which to clothe his ideas. I am sure the House will listen with interest to further contributions from the hon. Member. I think the discussion has proceeded far enough to show that most of those who are nominally supporting the Amendment are in entire disagreement with the Proposer of it. Even the hon. Member who seconded it was not in favour of it, or, at any rate, he struck out one definite point of difference between some hon. Members who sit opposite and Members on this side. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is in favour of control as a good thing in itself, a matter in which he differs from some, certainly of those who sit on those benches, for I know that — view is not generally shared. That is a definite point of difference
The purpose and the policy of the Government is to get rid of control at the earliest possible moment consistent with the safety of the tenant from exploitation by unscrupulous landlords if such should seek to take advantage of the condition that at present exists, because we believe control is a bad thing for the tenant as well as for the community generally. I say it is a bad thing for the tenant first of all because I differ from the hon. Member who has just spoken, who seems to think the existence of control would tend to stimulate the building of new houses. I failed altogether to follow his argument there. I think the general opinion will be that in so far as control affects the building of new houses at all it must tend to hinder it, because it disturbs confidence in investment in house property, on which the building of new houses must depend. But in addition to that the existence of
artificial conditions, such as are inseparable from any system of control, is bound to work hardship and injustice in a great number of individual cases. It leads to a great number of results which might perhaps be unexpected. You have landlords, for instance, who, if they get a house empty, decline to put another tenant in because they know that if they do they cannot get rid of him. You get the difficulty, that occurs over and over again, of the bad tenant. There are bad tenants as well as bad landlords. The landlord cannot get rid of him and replace him by a better one, and he sees the house suffering constant deterioration and is utterly helpless to put out the tenant or to find any remedy for the damage which is being done to his property. I could continue to indicate various ways in which I think control in itself is a thoroughly bad thing, and I believe the great majority of hon. Members, including probably the Proposer of the Amendment, desire to see control brought to an end at the earliest possible moment consistent with the conditions I have laid down.
If that be so, it comes to this point. What is the earliest moment at which control can be brought to an end? The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) said I have not allowed enough time. The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) said we ought to name a reasonable time. He thinks five years is a reasonable time, but other hon. Members opposite do not think that is a reasonable time. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says he cannot conceive that in five years it will be possible to give up control. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Lambeth, for instance, really thinks he can guarantee that in five years' time control can be ended. [Interruption.] Then why does he not name a reasonable time I do not follow the consistency or the logic of an hon. Member who quarrels with my two and a half years and supports a period which has certainly no more justification than the period I have put down if you are going to assume that at the end of your period control definitely must come to an end. But that is not my position. What I have said was that I did not know that it would be possible 'to bring control to an end. What I desired was that we should not keep
control on longer than was necessary. I have purposely framed this Bill so that when the two and a half years are up it may be possible if conditions are not then favourable to the ending of control, to continue the control under the Rent Restrictions Act by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That does not mean that we shall have to discuss questions of amendment. It means that the control will be carried on from year to year. It does not necessitate any repetitions of the arguments which hon. Members have carried on.
There is a further argument, adduced with an insinuating smile by the hon. Member for Camlachie. He drew a picture of the tenant with the sword of Damocles suspended over his head, and he told us that he himself has been wasted with anxiety for years over the question of control. I deplore the ravages which this uncertainty has brought about in the physique of the hon. Member, but I think he must be an exception to the general rule, because I have not been able to ascertain that tenants are today concerning themselves about what may happen 2½ years hence, especially after the very definite indication that I have given of what the policy of the Government on this matter really is. In the interests of the tenant and of the security of the tenant it is far better to tall him, "You are going to be protected as long as protection is necessary," than to tell him, "You are going to be protected for this, that or other definite number of years," when no one in this House or out of it can say with any certainty, or give any guarantee w hat the period will be.
There is the further point which has been raised, that this matter is likely to fall into doubt again about the period of a General Election. That argument leaves me stone cold. Those who are going to prophesy when a General Election is coming will probably be just as much out as those who attempt to prophesy when we can safely take off control. As for taking this question out of the arena of party politics. I wish I could think that any pledges that may be given in this House could possibly achieve that object. It will always be possible so long as the present conditions remain for this matter of the extension of control to be made a party question. When it is
merely a question of continuing the control under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act from year to year, there will be far less opportunity and far less invitation to those who are taking part in elections to make this a subject of what the hon. Member for Gorbals called election bribery, than if you are going to fix a definite period, when possibly you will have to keep control on, not under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but so that you will have to bring in a fresh Bill, which will open up the whole question.
If I were continuing definite control for such a long period as five years, or for 10 or 15 years, I should not have proceeded in this way. I should not have proceeded by a mere prolongation. I should have had to consider the full question of an amending Bill. It is quite certain that there are defects in the present Act, and there are hardships which are inflicted by the present Act, not on one side only, but in many directions, and if I thought that this control was going to be carried on for a much longer time, I should feel, in justice to the people affected by the present Act, that it would be necessary to see how I could improve the Act. I am hopeful. I think that hon. Members who ask for this longer period are unduly pessimistic. I shall not commit myself to any prophecy; I have never done so, and I am not going to begin now; but I do think that we may clearly take account of the fact that once the process of catching up arrears begins, it will proceed with increasing rapidity, because as we get labour and materials set free in one direction, they will become available in others, and so the actual catching up of these long overdue arrears may proceed much more quickly than one would suppose if one merely looked at the situation today.
There are various other factors which we cannot measure at the present time, which may have a very 'beneficial effect upon the time that will be necessary before we can feel ourselves to have solved the problem. I think it would be a very grave mistake to the ourselves up in any way which would inflict upon the country the burden of control even for a month longer than is absolutely necessary

Mr. FENBY: I am not in any way supporting the Amendment that control
should continue for five years, because I am not in the least enamoured of control. We seem in this Debate to have developed into a kind of Dutch auction. Hon. Members above the Gangway on this side suggest 15 years, and another hon. Member above the Gangway suggests 10 years. In this Amendment five years is suggested. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the speech he has just made, will reconsider the decision he has come to in regard to the period. He said there are certain defects in the Act. They are almost too obvious to need pointing out. The right hon. Gentleman said that if he had been extending the period of control for longer than two and a—half years he would have made certain improvements in the Act. He went on to say that if the matter is not settled at the end of two and a—half years the Act will go under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
By saying that if the period of control was to be longer than two 'and a—half years he would have made certain improvements, the right hon. Gentleman admits those improvements to be necessary if at the end of two and a—half years the Act goes into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, he will be debarred from improving the Act. That is a very important point which the Minister ought to take into serious consideration. Control hits both sides, the landlord and the tenant. I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman has been in any way influenced as to the brief period of two and a—half years which he thinks is sufficient, because of opinions expressed to him privately by Members of his own party, and which have been expressed in the House to—night with regard to the non—necessity of control in rural areas. I am amazed that any Member of this House of any party can make the statement that there is no need in certain rural areas for a continuation of control with regard to working—class houses. To me it denotes a lack of knowledge concerning the actual conditions in rural areas. If hon. Members who have made those statements will consult the agricultural committees of the country they will find that large numbers of applications are continually being made to agricultural committees by tenant farmers for certificates for the purpose of getting out men who have left their employment, but who
are living in the houses which are said to go with the farm. The reason that these certificates are being applied for is that the people cannot find any other houses to go into after they leave the employment of a particular farmer
I will give another concrete fact to dispose of the statements which have been made. I can take you to certain rural areas in the North where men, working in the towns during the day, walk from their homes four miles in the morning, and four miles home again in the evening. In another part they have to travel even longer distances—up to six or seven miles. We are told that these men cannot pay reasonable rent of houses in towns, but these men are working in towns and are drawing town wages, but they cannot get houses in the town and they have to live in the country where they come into undue competition with the agricultural worker. There is no foundation for the statement that there is no reason for the continuance of control in rural areas. In my opinion there is just as much need for control in rural areas as there is in urban areas. The Minister stated that my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) only suggests control for five years, and asked, does he suggest that control should end then. He does not. What he suggests is that it should by no means end before that. That is the real root of this Amendment.
An appeal has been made to my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) as to his reason for supporting this Amendment. His reason is that he wants to have a period of security, and a period which clues not extend to five years does not give reasonable security. We are not advocating this from the point of view of a General Election or from the point of view of party politics It is a question of human need. Knowing, as I do, the urban and the rural areas, I say that there is a great human need for better housing accommodation, and that security can be given and control removed only by a large extension of the number of houses that are built. We are all agreed that the necessary increase in the number of houses cannot be made in two and a half years. We are certain that it cannot be made in five years, but we do say that five years gives a reasonable period of security to the people in their
homes. Therefore, we make the appeal to the Minister not to put this into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill at the end of two and a half years. The Minister himself has admitted that there are grave, faults in this Bill, and that if there had been suggested a period of control of more than two and a half years he would have made great improvements, and now he suggests that it is going to be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, in which it cannot be improved. I hope that he will respond to the very human appeal which we are making to extend the period of control from two and a—half to five years.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to add my appeal to the Government to extend the period of control. The last speaker has said that the Minister of Health has himself admitted that there are many defects in the existing Rent Restrictions Act, and then he comes before this House in a rather curious manner, asking the House to continue for two and a.—half years an Act in which he admits there are many defects which ought to be put right. I should have imagined that a Minister of the Crown, who has taken in charge the amending or continuation of a Bill, and who asks for a Second Reading, a Committee stage and a Report stage, merely to continue what he admits is a defective Act of Parliament, is not playing the game with the Members of this House, nor with the people outside who occupy the houses which it is proposed to continue to control. If he is going to play the game with those people, then an opportunity should be taken at the earliest moment in this House, of remedying the defects of any Act of Parliament that may be entrusted to any Department. That is not being done, and the Minister in replying to the discussion, and in setting out what he thought were some of the major defects in the Bill, admitted that at the end of two and a half years, if it is necessary to continue it, it will be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Why did he say "If it is necessary?" The Minister of Health knows that it will he necessary. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that it will be necessary, and that in two and a half years there will not be sufficient houses built in this country to make good the shortage of houses at present existing.
He knows that it is only a trick of words to say, "If it is necessary, at the end of two and a—half years, we will smuggle this little Act into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, where it may be continued from year to year." He knows that no Act which it is proposed to continue under that Bill can be altered and improved, and consequently the Minister of Health, who admitted that if, at the end of two and a—half years, the housing shortage has not been made good, then he will put the Rent Restriction Act into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, with the result that the House will have no opportunity of remedying the defects of the Act, is not playing the game with the House or with people outside. If the existing legislation has to be brought before the House once again, opportunity ought to be given to Members to remedy its defects.
The Minister of Health said that owners of houses were not the only people who were at fault, and that there were faults on both sides. We admit that. He quoted an extravagant illustration. He said that if a tenant does something to damage a house, the owner of the house cannot put him out. But he can. He can take him into Court. He can show him to be an undesirable tenant. If he shows that the tenant is destroying the house wilfully, is putting it into an insanitary condition, is doing something to the walls or the roof, or other permanent fixture, to make the house uninhabitable, then he can get that tenant removed. Why put such an illustration as that before the House when he knew perfectly well, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health knew, that a tenant of that kind could be prevented from injuring the house any further?
An hon. Member who spoke from the benches opposite showed the real nature of the following of the Government, as did one of his colleagues. They were out for decontrol. They tried to sugar their pill by suggesting that instead of this House passing an Act to control the houses, we ought to leave the matter in the hands of local authorities. We know perfectly well that in a place like Hastings, with a Tory majority, And in other towns where you find large numbers of members of the local authority vitally interested in the ownership of houses,
you would get the council, with its majority interested in or friendly towards the house owners, to pass at once a motion for the removal of control front houses. I am quite certain that when an hon. Member quoted the President of the Board of Education as saying that the people in his place wanted decontrol, he was either interpreting the President of the Board of Education wrongly or the President of the Board of Education, if he used those words, was not interpreting the thoughts of the people of Hastings. Those who know Hastings know quite well that even in the well—to—do part of the town, in St. Leonards, there is a shortage of houses. In the old town of Hastings there are no vacant houses. Indeed, there is a proposal in Hastings now to try to bring about some Lig clearances which will sweep away the whole town with all its slums and narrow passages and tiny houses cooped up between two hills in a gulley, and to replace them by a, big housing scheme.
We want control to continue. One of my hon. Friends mentioned control for 15 years. Some hon. Members laughed; they thought it was unnecessary to have control for such a long period. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can fix a definite date when the housing shortage will be met. I am certain that he cannot, because the Minister of Health admitted that it was impossible to say when the shortage could be made good. If he cannot fix a definite date when the shortage will be met, he cannot fix a definite date for control. Consequently, he cannot say that in two and a half years he is going to provide sufficient houses to make good the shortage. Consider many of the cities of today. The matter has been referred to by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) and by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant), and by other hon. Members. At the present time, in most of the big industrial cities, houses that were condemned four, five and even ten years ago as unsuitable for human habitation, have had to be opened again and used as dwellings for people who cannot find other houses. It will take five years at least to sweep away the insanitary dwellings in the towns and to provide for the accommodation of those who are dispossessed. Even then you
will be touching only the fringe of the problem, as it will appeal to you then because of the increase of population and the number of people wanting new houses. It is really an insult to the intelligence of the House and to the people who are living in slums or in condemned houses to try to fob them off with the idea that in two and a half years' time this Government will provide sufficient houses for them all. It is impossible. The Parliamentary Secretary would not dare to make that suggestion in his own constituency at Woolwich. If he cannot make that statement in his own constituency he cannot make it in this House. If he cannot make it in this House, I repeat that he is insulting the people outside, as he is insulting the Members of this House, by asking us to continue control for only two and a half years

Mr. MARCH: I have been sitting here all the afternoon listening very attentively to the Debate on housing and the need for the extension of control. Most of the statements made have related to districts outside this little area where we are. One would conclude that, as no London Member has said anything about the housing conditions in and around London, we were all contented. I have risen for the purpose of stating that London has not solved the housing problem entirely, and to call the attention of the Government to the fact that another public body just over the other side of the river recognises that fact. It is 18 months since a conference was called by the chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, when he told the people that it was time we had housing carried out rapidly. He said
 Over 53 per cent, of the persons housed in London live in two—roomed tenement—s.
That being so, there is ample opportunity for housing to be carried out in order to clear the people out of those tenements. But that is not the worst, for he said also:
 There are 2,000 slum areas scheduled in London as insanitary. We can safely say that during the past 18 months that big body has not cleared one of those insanitary areas. I understand that it is going to set about the clearing of one area at St. Pancras, and in order to do so to build blocks nine storeys high, when consent has been
obtained. That is the way they are setting about clearing the deplorable condition of over 2,000 insanitary areas that are already scheduled. At that rate, if they clear one area in five years, one can well see the necessity for the extension of control. In my district we appealed to the County Council to clear away certain slum areas but to this day they have been unable to do so. We set about clearing one of these areas ourselves and we put up tenements upon it. To show how necessary it is to put up houses and tenements I may mention that for a block of 12 tenements we had 1,700 applications. The committee in charge of the matter had the utmost difficulty in selecting the most urgent cases out of these 1,700, they were all so bad. We propose to go on building and we have purchased a piece of land on which to erect 72 houses. Four years ago we put up 98 houses on a site apposite to that which we have just purchased for the 72 houses and we had to pay £200 an acre more for the land purchased—recently than we paid for the land purchased four years ago.
It seems to me that control is very necessary, not only in regard to the houses already built, but in regard to the landlords who sell land to people desirous of building, and who in four years increase the price of land—which had been let in allotments as agricultural land during all that time—by £200 an acre. When the inhabitants of our district learned of the proposal to erect 72 further houses we had no fewer than 2,000 applications. In most of these cases it was very necessary that the people concerned should get houses, and we found case after case of man and wife and four, five or six children living in one room. It is not common decency; yet we are told that it is not necessary to have control extended further than two and a—half years. I think we ought to have control for at least five years, which would give us an opportunity of considering the matter and dealing with those defects which, according to the Minister of Health himself, the Act contains. I presume the Government has something in mind when they suggest two and a—half years. Probably they think, after the Chancellor's statement, that there will by that time be a 10s. a week old age pension payable at the age of 65, and that if they get rid of control the landlord will be able to take away that 10s. in increased
rent. So they are going to help their friends in that way. It is a nice way of doing things. One has only to consider these matters, and one can see how these people help each other. It is necessary that control should be extended, and I had hoped that the Minister would have considered the very moderate Amendment which suggested five years, as against the 10 or 15 years mentioned by some of my colleagues, though 10 or 15 years would not have been at all too long. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry will agree there is no likelihood of the housing shortage being supplied in London in 10 or 15 or even 20 years.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would not have risen in this Debate had I not heard the Minister of Health state, before retiring from his place in the House, that it was absolutely necessary to have decontrol, in order to get on with house—building. He said it was the only way. That means that, because there is control, those who own the houses are prevented from increasing the rents. I ask the House, and particularly those Members who support the Government, to consider well why we ever had this control. Why was the Rent Restrictions Act originally brought into being? It was a war—time Measure, and the reason for it was that those who own the houses in which the people of this country live were charging rents which the people could not pay. They were demanding those rents. from the womenfolk, while the men folk were away fighting the battles of the country. Nothing could have been more treacherous or more despicable than the part played at that time by those individuals commonly called landlords in this country —we call them factors in Scotland—and it is evident that the Tory party forget those facts.
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Minister of Health that he is wrong, and the Tory party is wrong, in the statements which are made in this House, that we on this side do not represent working—class opinion in the country. I was recently in Birmingham, the home of the Minister of Health and of the Foreign Secretary. I believe in bearding the lions in their den, and on Friday night in Birmingham, although I am only a back—hencher of the Labour party, I had the town hall packed from floor to ceiling in order to hear a message
delivered from the Socialist point of view—yes, even in Birmingham. That spells the end of the Foreign Secretary and of the Minister of Health.

Mr. DEPUTYSPEAKER(Mr. JamesHope): The point under discussion is the end of control, and not the end of the Minister of Health or the Foreign Secretary.

Mr.KIRKWO0D: Decontrol is a very serious matter to our people. On Sunday I was in my own constituency, the town of Dumbarton, and visited quite a number of the people whom I have the honour to represent. Where are they living? In wash houses. Why are they living in wash houses? Because there are no other houses for them to live in, and they are paying rent for the privilege of living in wash houses. Think what that means. There is no use in control for the rich men. The rich men's wives have no housing problem. This is a problem that affects only the working folk of this country. There is no housing problem for the rich, no housing problem for the individual who represents Birmingham, no housing problem for the Minister of Health, no housing problem for his Parliamentary Secretary, sitting there with his face beaming and smiling while our people are being roasted and toasted by the awful conditions that prevail, even in the constituency that he represents. But we will see. The Rent Restrictions Act, it has never to be forgotten, was brought into being to protect the common people of this country from the rich people of this country, and the Minister of Health is of the opinion, backed by his Parliamentary Secretary, backed by a great many Tories—not by all the Tories—either that or they do not speak the truth when I am speaking to them privately.

Colonel DAY: And on the platform.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, and on the platform, as my hon. and gallant colleague informs me. Some Tories, as well as some Liberals and all the Labour party, believe that control is necessary to protect the common people of this country, the reason being, as admitted by the representatives of the Government on this matter, that if control is done away with on will go house building.
How will it go on It will go on because they will have the right then to put on any price they like for the houses. Now our people, I want to tell you rich men, cannot afford to pay any increased rent. Every hon. Member, at any rate, from the West of Scotland—and we from the West of Scotland will do all we possibly can to make it the case all over England —is pledged to his constituents to bring rents back to pre—War level. We know quite well that that may injure, but you cannot have justice done to the great. mass of ale people without hurting somebody, so therefore I would appeal—because I do not want. to use too much time at this juncture, as I intend to bring up other things on this Budget Debate—to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Health
—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Where is the Secretary for Scotland?

Mr.KIRKWO0D: Yes, why is it that Scotland is not represented on the Front Bench? Is this what we pay them for? Is this what the Secretary for Scotland is putting in a claim for a rise in his wages for—for not being present? Where is the Secretary for Scotland? Where is his Under-Secretary, the captain of the guard? [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the Minister of Health? "] The Minister of Health has been here a good while, but he is away dining. I do not know whether or not he is wining—I have nothing to do with that—but 9.0 P.M.this is something which the Tory party will be well advised, by me, not to pass lightly over. It may not be of tremendous international importance, but it is of tremendous national importance, and, to me, that is of more importance than anything international. We intend to hammer at this thing, because it is always the last straw that breaks the camel's back, and all these little things will tell against you. You are before the bar of judgment, remember. You are before the people. The people are watching you. The people are watching the Tory party. We have the ear of the people in the country, and we are going round the country, and it will just depend on how you treat this rent restriction

Mr. DEPUTY—SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is getting a little wide of the
subject, which is as to whether control should 'be for two and a half years or five years.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Of course, two and a half years or five years is too short a period for me, and for the people whom I represent. I am backing up either my hon. comrade the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) or my gallant, learned and hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) in their demand for 15 or 30 years, because I am in for control. I want to control the rich man. I want to take from him the power to crush the working folk. I want to do all that I can. in my own peculiar fashion—it may not be Parliamentary—from the Floor of this House, believing that it is possible to get things done in a Parliamentary way, and I will continue to do that as long as you allow me, but I want these conditions that appertain today in working—class life changed. Through this decontrol, you are going to make the lot of the people whom we represent harsher, and we are not going to stand for that, whether we are in order or out of order.
Fifteen years is the period arrived at as the considered opinion of the party which we represent. It has been discussed at the Labour party conference, and it has been decided by the Independent Labour Party—at any rate, by the Scottish section of it—that we require 15 years of control. The very fact that we have to stand here and ask for control is evidence in itself that we fear those who have control. We want to get control of them, not only of the houses, because, as I have stated here before, it is my confirmed opinion that no man has a right to own my home. No landlord has a right to own anyone's home. Again, the Minister of Health stated that there were people who were bad tenants.They are always telling us that, but it depends on what you mean by bad tenants. It does not matter how bad they are, they must be housed. Neither the Minister of Health nor the Parliamentary Secretary is going to say to us that, because people are bad, they are not to have a roof over their heads. In this country of ours, it is necessary to have a shelter. Supposing a man was a, murderer, which is supposed to be the worst crime he can commit, you would have to give him a shelter. You do not cremate him right off; and if you
do not give people homes, you have to cremate them.
None of these folk called had folk are too bad to go and fight your battles. None of them were too weak, none of them were "the unemployable" during the Great War. You even went into the workhouses and brought out old men. Everyone in this country has a right to a shelter, but as society is at present constituted, it cannot be done, because, as the Minister of Health has pointed out, those houses were not built in order that they might be homes for the people. Those houses were built in order that a profit might be made out of them. It is only incidental that the homes are happy homes or miserable homes. It is all the same to the landlord. He builds those houses in order to make a profit out of them. How do. you expect to rear a hardy, intelligent race, a race of beautiful men and beautiful women, under conditions such as these, that the homes have not been built because the people require homes, but have been built by people in order that they might make money out of the transaction. Therefore, I support the idea. of 15 years

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I think anyone coming to this House, not knowing the facts, not knowing what the Bill was, not knowing the Amendment we were discussing, and listening to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) dealing with the matter in what, I think I may say without offence—because he used the expression himself—his own peculiar way, would think this was a Bill immediately to bring in decontrol of houses, whereas it is a Bill to continue it for a period of two and a—half years. I really think, after the speeches to which we have just listened, it is necessary to impress it upon such people as may tot have grasped what the Bill proposes to do.
What. I really rose to say was that we hear a good deal in this House about election pledges, and charges that those pledges have been recklessly broken. I I have a very strong recollection in my mind, and I think a good many other Members will have the same, that a definite statement was made by those who are now on the Treasury Bench with regard to this decontrol, that the present system would be continued for a period of two years, and that after that it would
be necessary to see how the situation stood. That is exactly what this Bill carries out. The Amendment to continue it for five years, if accepted, would be a breach of an election pledge, and yet hon. Members opposite calmly ask us to break our pledge. Here was an absolutely definite statement made by our leaders, and I should think repeated by all of us on the platform, that control should be continued for two years, until we could see how the housing situation stood. It may be as hon. Members say, that after two and a—half years the housing shortage will not be met, and decontrol will have to be continued. It is rather risky to prophesy, but I imagine this House will be here to deal with that situation when it arises, and all this eloquence and violent language might well have been reserved until the end of the two and a—half years if this Government should then propose to do away with control. I think that is a conclusive argument against all the opposition that has been raised to this Bill at every stage
I want to draw attention to a remark that was made by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. March), who made, I think, one of the most unworthy suggestions I have ever heard in this House. Hon. Members opposite are very susceptible to taking offence themselves. If they think the slightest word is said which they consider insults them, or insults their class, they will howl down a Chancellor of the Exchequer. But what did the hon. Member for Poplar insinuate against us? He insinuated that we are bringing in an old age pension scheme, whereby the old people will have los. a week more in two years, and that this Bill was brought in to extend control for two and a half years, so that control could then be taken off and the landlords allowed to grab the 10s. old age pension. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ! "] That insinuation is cheered by hon. Members opposite. Those are the insults they are prepared to throw at us, and yet they howl down our Front Bench should any suggestions be made which do not in any way approach such insinuations as that made by the hon. Member for Poplar. Surely hon. Members opposite must know that if they are prepared to make insinuations, and to give blows of that kind, they ought to be men enough to receive them. There has
been a good deal too much of the velvet glove in dealing with them: I would much rather have a little more of the mailed fist.

Mr. B. SMITH: I am delighted to see that a Samson has arisen with a speech which one would say was heat without fire. We can take a knock on this side, but, apparently, the hon. Gentleman himself is susceptible to attack. [An HON. MEMBER: "Below the belt."] I do not care where it is so long as it gets there. I understood the Prime Minister to say there is no belt now. I am going to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in fact, it is contemplated that when the old people receive their pensions, they are to have their houses rent free, and, if not, will not, in fact, some part of that los. be taken as rent? Is there not, therefore, some modicum of truth in the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar? Obviously, there is. I want to put this point of view. Why set a period to control? Why two and a—half years? I remember being on the Committee which considered our Rent Restrictions Bill when we were on the other side, and hearing the present Parliamentary Secretary arguing against 1928, which was in our Bill. Not only that, but he destroyed the Cornmitt.e's work, leading his people out of the Committee room, and moving Amendments galore that had no semblance of sense or anything to do with the matter. I ask why, at this moment, state a date at all? Surely, the reason for the two and a—half years is, that when the period expires you may have worn our people down so that you can build houses at an economic rent, so called, which will have the effect of increasing rents and enticing the jerry builder again to the industry. If not, why not let control go on without fixing a period, and then we can deal with it when the time arrives, as you are dealing with the gold standard when the time arrives, as you say?
The Ministry is wrongly named altogether. It is not a Ministry of Health, but a Ministry of Misery. [An HON. MEMBER: "And death! "] Ay, and death stalking from borough to borough. The hon. Member opposite has paid a visit to my constituency. He has been in the famous Salisbury Street area, where nearly half the children born die. We called in a valuer to value the land in view of the property which has been
condemned. He valued the land at:12,000. We went to the Ministry, who, in reply to our query, said: "We will send down our man." They sent him down, and he valued it at £36,000. The suggestion now is that if we, who wanted to put up cottage homes for our people with a bathroom, in one part of Bermondsey, and to allow God's sunlight to rest on the houses, take £12,000 worth of the land, we can sell the other two—thirds for commercial purposes, by putting our people into barracks, we can have reared up alongside streets of warehouses and factories, which will destroy all the health—giving properties of the new places. There is no question about that. It is true! Now, in my constituency

Mr. DEPUTY—SPEAKER: I do not quite see how the hon. Member relates what he is saying to the question before the House of the number of years.

Mr. SMITH: My reason is that we as a borough council are trying to be the scavenger of the jerry builder and the landlord, and we are likely to be subjected to the interests of private enterprise if and when control ends. That is all the point I am trying to make, and I feel I am within my right in doing so. In my constituency in London there are back to back houses with one solitary front window, in front of which the lavatory is built. The only means of getting any fresh air is from over the river across the refuse heap into the houses, and the people there are dying daily. The Ministry of Misery! We have tried all we possibly could to get these people de—housed, and sent away to Becontree. We have taken over the workhouse, and fitted it up with flats, and still we are waiting for the Ministry to give us an answer as to what they are prepared to do. The Minister says barracks. We say cottages. That is how we stand. We do not want the sunlight or the air stopped by piling on stack upon stack of dwellings on every side, having no regard for the poor devils who have to walk up at night and mount these stairs to the top flat; no regard for the children who are weak and practically half—starved having to mount these stairs. I say, therefore, and repeat the name, it is a Ministry of Misery, and not a Ministry of Health. If it were really a Ministry of Health,
it would stand at nothing to clear away the 2,000 slum areas in London or to see that the men, women andchildren—and more especially the children—were properly housed in this great city of London, as well as in the rest of the country.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite—despite their two years' pledge—that was forced upon them by the party to which I belong—despite their pledge that they would take the two years off when we were the Government and the Bill was in Committee upstairs—are destroying the Bill, are now coming as wolves in sheeps' clothing and saying we are the people who gave the pledge. It is sheer humbug, and nothing else. We are now so honouring our pledge that we are desirous of continuing the Act six months longer than we promised. I say that the whole question and method of rent control as dealt with in this Bill is wrong. The period ought to be extended. I am not sure whether you will not yet have to extend it yourselves. There may come a time whoa you can do what you so easily do, make volts face on this question of control, and say that control is the best thing for both tenant and landlord. There may come that time. At the moment our policy is the longest possible period of control in the hope of seeing that no one shall not profit by the misery of ow! people.

Mr. G. W. H. JONES: In opposing this Amendment I think that there are two points which should distinctively be kept in mind. One is the question of the prolonging the Act, and the other is the question of the period of control. I entirely agree with the speakers who have said that the period of two and a—half years is nothing like a sufficiently long period for control. All the same, I should be very sorry indeed to find the Act prolonged for longer than is absolutely necessary. It is impossible for anyone to go into a County Court or other of the lower Courts of this country without finding day by day the defects of this Measure, and the grave injustices that are perpetrated on one side or the other. I extremely regret that the Ministry of Health has not made an entirely fresh Bill. The defects of the Bill, and of the recent Acts, in relation to tenants are only appreciated when you look into the
matter. For to appreciate what are the rights and duties of the parties it would appear necessary to read through three Acts of Parliament and to have in mind several hundreds of decisions. If a new Bill had been introduced, and I think a new Bill will have to be introduced sooner or later, I would suggest that the entire position should be reconsidered, so that it might be possible to have an ad hoc Measure which would deal with questions of fact, without people having to go to law so much. I do not want to say anything against anybody going to law, or having litigation if so minded, but to seek decisions in the Court puts both tenants and landlords to enormous expense, and it must be remembered that many landlords are quite poor. I should like to see some new system similar to that adumbrated in Part II of the Act of 1923, by which we could get rid of all these technicalities and the litigation on legal points, and let us know where we stand.
Passing from that, I entirely agree with the policy of the Bill that control should be continued. I do not think that we can possibly drop control until such time as the housing shortage has been reasonably overtaken. I agree it must be abolished at the earliest possible moment. One of the unfortunate points about control is that the very fact of putting on control discourages the builders from putting up the houses which are needed. The hon. Member who last spoke, spoke as though this was a Bill dealing with the housing shortage. It has nothing to do with the housing shortage. In fact, if it has any effect at all, it will make the housing shortage worse by discouraging the builders from coming in. What we have to do is to try to get through a very difficult period and at the earliest possible to get rid of control altogether. Only by that can we remove the housing shortage which has been the foundation and root of all our troubles

Mr. MONTAGUE: I should like to put a point or two to the Parliamentary Secretary, which I think justifies this Amendment, and justifies further Amendments which seek to extend the period of control for even longer than five years —points that come as the result of my own experience in a very overcrowded district of London. People who are overcrowded and are affected by the question
of housing and rents are people who do not understand and would not follow the statements made by the Minister of Health as to the proposals of the Government to extend control, if necessary, at the end of the period of two and a half years. Those people are concerned about the question of control, and feel that they require security, and because of that necessity for security I do urge that this Amendment should be carried and that the security should at least be extended for double the period proposed by the Government. Of course, everyone who knows anything about the housing problem understands that it will be impossible to overcome the housing shortage and, by any measure of justice, to end the period of control at the end of two and a half years. When you consider the fact that the necessity for new houses is usually based upon the marriage rate of this country, which is somewhere about 300,000 per year, and that it is regarded as proportionate that there should be at least new houses built equivalent to 30 per cent. of that marriage rate in order to meet the normal requirements for increased accommodation, that means 90,000 houses per year in addition to all the other questions that are involved in housing in the country.
Houses get beyond the possibility of living in in proportion to the number of years that they have been in existence, therefore in addition to the 90,000 houses required as 30 per cent. of the marriage rate, at least 70 to 80 per cent. more houses are required to take the place of those that necessarily come to an end by reason of time and dilapidation. On top of that you have the whole question that has been referred to so often, the question of houses that have been condemned. In London you have 2,000 slum areas scheduled by the London County Council for the better part of 20 years. There is no question about the impossibility of overcoming that shortage in anything like two and a half years, or anything like 15 years. Realising that, it seems to me that it would be only fair to the people of London, to the people of my constituency, to the people of Glasgow, and to people who do not follow the details of political speeches and do not understand that the Government have pledged themselves, if necessary, to
extend control for two and a half years, to give them a little bit more security than they have with regard to the possibility of being turned out of their homes at the end of the two or two and a half years.
I should like also to touch on the point which has been the main point of the last speaker, and which was referred to by the Minister of Health himself, that is, the effect of control on building. We are told control is a bad thing. It may be or it may not be. So far as housing is concerned, it is a good thing until there are houses sufficient to meet the needs and the 5 per cent. over which the Minister of Health admitted was desirable in order to allow the play of demand on the part of those who want houses. Until that time comes, until the people of this country are decently instead of abominably housed, surely there should be some control over landlords who would, and unquestionably will, if control is taken off at any short period of time, take advantage of the situation to profiteer at the expense of poor tenants whenever the time of control automatically elapses. There is no question of supply and demand. If houses are built in sufficient numbers, whether there is control or not, the automatic result will be that normal conditions will prevail.
I should like the Under-Secretary to say what there is in the continued statement that the effect of control prevents people getting houses. As I understand the situation—and I think I have studied the housing question in this country for a number of years closely—a builder can build any number of houses he pleases without any control. He can charge What rents he likes or, as is usually the case today, he can put whatever selling price he likes upon the houses. If that is the case, and control only applies to houses built before the War, what argument is there in the statement that control has affected tenants or has affected at all the question of re—housing and the urgent demand there is for houses in the country? I would like a reply to that question. In debate after debate that statement has been made, and I, for one, can see no ground at all for it. If that is so, surely there is only one argument as to control being taken off, and that is that the interest of the
people will be injured by control being taken off. In support of that the only thing ever said upon the matter—because no one has ever said that the landlords want the advantage of control; of course they do not, they never do—is that the tenants will suffer and they will suffer because the increased number of houses required will not arrive owing to the discouragement of building as the result of control. I want to know where discouragement comes in, since the control that is exercised at the present time does not affect new buildings in any way whatever? I do hope the Under-Secretary will enlighten the House upon that point

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to keep the House any longer than is necessary upon this important subject, but I think that this is a matter that really wants to be considered very fully by the House, because in producing this Bill the Government have shown very clearly that they have not given the matter of rent restriction very full consideration. I want to support the Amendment for extended control and to support particularly the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and one or two other Members for a recognition that control as a principle is right with reference to the housing of this country, not for two and a half years or five years or 15 years, but that the housing of the people of this country should not be a matter that is subject to the fluctuations of the law of supply and demand and should be guided by consideration of two things—the cost of constructing house property and the capacity of the people to pay rents of Louses, and that the law of supply and demand should not be allowed to operate at all. I see the Minister for Health has now returned to his place, and he smiles at the idea of suspending the law of supply and demand by the neck. I think he will agree with me that since Einstein produced his theory of relativity, the law of supply and demand has gone completely off the economic map as the law of gravitation have gone completely out of the physical sciences, and that he has now to approach these problems from an entirely different point of view than that of charging people for the commodities they want, the most that the conditions of supply will enable him to extract. It seems to me particularly
futile that today they should be wanting decontrol so that the landlords may charge exorbitant rents for the working—class houses, and that we should be wanting control just now, and yet perhaps 20 years hence, when there is a supply of houses, we shall be demanding decontrol then in order that we may get houses as something less then the real cost of production. The Minister ought to consider what is going to happen when there is an oversupply of houses, as we all hope and expect there will be. The natural tendency then will be for rents to fall some way below the real value of the houses. If, in the intervening 15 or 20 years, when the municipalities of Great Britain have become the owners of a larger proportion of house property, there is an over—supply of houses, and rents are dropping steadily, I he municipalities will then come running along to the Minister of Health, who will not be my right hon. Friend. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] He will either have bad promotion by that time, or be out of the political picture altogether. He was prophesying about things, but I am not going to prophesy. The Minister of Health of that date will find a whole collection of municipalities owning house property, but because there are more houses than people wanting houses that property will be a bad debt and a burden on the community. All the municipalities, the municipality of Birmingham included, will be running to the Minister of Health to ask him to establish control, so that the landlords may not be starved to death because they cannot get a just price for their unoccupied property. [Laughter.] You laugh at the idea of them coming forward, but under the Safeguarding of Industries Act they are coming along to ask for exactly the same thing. and under the McKenna Duties, which are being reimposed—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The relativity of the hon. Member is competing with the relativity of Einstein.

Mr. MAXTON: I admit it was an effort for me to bring the relativity of Einstein within the scope of the Rent Restriction Act. I hope, though, that I am well within the Rules of this House in arguing as to the law of supply and demand and the effect of control. If the right hon. Gentleman asks me to follow his principle
of controlling, say, silk stockings, interfering with the natural order of supply and demand and interfering with the supply of other commodities by the McKenna Duties, I think I am within my rights—I speak subject to your ruling, of course—in pressing him to apply the same principle in an extended way to the production of houses. The principle that is involved is exactly the same, we are trying to prevent over supply, to prevent rents falling below a figure that will enable the men who are building houses to earn a living wage and the employers to get a reasonable profit. I say all commodities should be produced in such a way that persons engaged in the production of them, whether there may be an over supply or an under supply, get a proper reward for the labour of producing them. Therefore I want the Minister of Health to project himself 15 years forward

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is building up a rather large argument on the period between 1927 and 1930

Mr. MAXTON: The point I am making is this: The House has been arguing this question all night on the assumption that control is justifiable only for the limited period when there is an under supply of houses. I am arguing that somewhere within the confines of 15 years, or perhaps within the confines of five years, there might be a big inrush of men and capital into the building industry, or there might be a great emigration of people from the country, or a reduction in the birth rate or a great increase in the death rate, so that there came a period when there were more houses than people wanting houses. I am arguing that if those circumstances arrive the landlords of this country will come running to this House asking for control. While I must honestly admit that I am not very much interested in the welfare of the individual private landlord. I am interested in the welfare of the many municipalities which are now becoming big property owners, and I am anxious that when the market is running against them they shall get a just return for the labour that has been invested in the construction of houses, and that the rents of houses should not be fixed by the higgling of the market.
I am not talking about things that have not taken place. I remember a big
building boom in a certain part of the country about the year 1900 or 1901, I think. Probably other Members will remember other parts of the country where houses were built at such a great rate by private enterprise that they outstripped the needs of the locality. The owners of property in one street were competing with the owners of property in the next street for such tenants as were seeking houses, and on occasions a landlord would offer free tenancy for nine months, or a year, or 15 months, in order to get a tenant to come into his property rather than go into the property of the other man in the next street. That is all wrong. I think the community should definitely have control of house erection and house owning and the rental at which houses should be let, and that it should be part of the definite aim of Government., as far as they possibly can, to make the supply of houses just exactly meet the demand for houses. But since that poise can never be quite accurately kept —there is either a swing to the one side or the other—they should see that no fluctuations of the market are allowed to decide what the rent of a particular property shall be—they should recognise that that is a responsibility which rests with the Government of the country, and not with any body of speculative builders, or even municipalities, and that the matter should not be left at the mercy of unregulated occurrences that may affect the incomings and the outgoings of the population.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to agree. to this extended period of control, the longer period. I am not satisfied with the conditions of control, even for the shorter period. I Nvish I could think that in the intervening two and a—half years the Minister would go into the whole problem of the rental that should be charged for houses, and try to tackle it in a really scientific way, instead of by the very rough-and-ready way of slapping on 25 per cent., or 15 per cent., which is a very clumsy way of trying to assess the real value of these places. I think there ought to be a roll kept of the houses in this country, and those houses more than 20 years old ought to be placed on a steadily descending scale, and immediately the whole lot of houses more than 100 years old should be wiped off the rent rolls altogether.
If I thought that the two and a half years' period proposed by the Minister of Health was going to mean that during that time he was going to produce a system of rent restriction and rent control that would be a decent reflex of the economic facts, then I would agree to the shorter period. The right hon. Gentleman says, however, that his reason for the shorter period is to enable him to continue this Act unamended by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, which means that he regards the present increase in rent as the basic rent in the future. Those increases were imposed without any justification, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to make that state of things permanent through the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, I must say that I intend to support the Amendment providing for an extended period rather than this short term of two and a-half years.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (SirKingsleyWood): Perhaps I may be allowed at this stage to reply to some of the questions which have been put by various speakers. I think it is well to remind the Committee exactly what it is we are discussing. We are discussing whether the Rent Restrictions Act of 1920 shall be extended, and if extended, for what period. May I remind hon. opposite that the Rent Restrictions Act of 1920 contains some very important provisions the majority of which I think it can be said are for the benefit and protection of the tenants of this country. That Act restricts the amount of rent which a landlord can impose upon his tenants by a sum not exceeding 40 per cent. over the standard rent. It restricts the increase of mortgage interest to a certain percentage over the pre—War standard. It prevents in a very drastic fashion landlords recovering possession of their own houses, and finally it prevents people who have lent money and have not been able to get it back again, foreclosing, and getting possession of the property upon which they have advanced the money.
The proposition now before the Committee is that all those rights and all that. protection to the tenants of this country shall be continued, and so far from there being any attempt by the Government in this Bill to do any harm,
wrong, or injury to a large body of people in this country, the real truth is exactly the opposite. At this moment we are proposing—although I admit that a stranger entering this House during the last two hours would not think so—that all this protection to tenants shall be continued. The only issue before the Committee at the present moment is the period. The Government have proposed a period of two and a—half years accompanied by the assurance of the Ministry of Health that if at the end of that period the state of matters should be such that the tenants of this country are not properly protected without a further extension of the Act or other legislation the Government will see to it that they take the proper steps to give them the necessary protection. What is the opposite proposal to that? It is one made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who proposes that the period, instead of being two and a half years, should be five years. That Amendment has had one of the most remarkable receptions that I have ever known given to any proposition in this House, because I have noted throughout the Debate that not a single hon. Member, although professing to speak in favour of it, really desires it. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, when asked if he was prepared to accept that period so far as Middlesbrough was concerned, shook his head

Mr. T. THOMSON: I never suggested that control should come to an end on the expiration of five years, but I suggested that protection should remain for five years, and then be continued on its merits.

Sir K.WOOD: Those are not the terms contained in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member. Just as it has been urged against the Government's proposals that the Bill only extends the period for two and a half years, it has been urged against the hon. Member's Amendment on the Paper that it only extends the period for five years. In addition to that, various hon. Members who have supported this Amendment, so far from saying that five years is the proper period, have made all sorts of astonishing suggestions. An hon. Member opposite, who made such an eloquent
speech, got as far as suggesting 30 years. Another hon. Member spoke in favour of the proposition of the Eon. Member for West Middlesbrough, and he went so far as to say that there ought not to be any date at all.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On these benches we support the broad principle of control for a longer period, and we have been speaking upon the general question of extension.

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid the hon. Member is not following my criticism, which is that there has not been a single hon. Member who on its merits has supported the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough.

Mr. FENBY: The Parliamentary Secretary has just stated that those supporting this Amendment do not desire the five years' control. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I was not sincere. I supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, and I support the extension for five years.

Sir K. WOOD: I at once accept what the hon. Member for East Bradford has said, but I would point out that I made a careful note of what he said. He supported the five years' period, but added that he was certain that control would not come to an end after a period of five years. Those are the various proposals before the House.

Mr. FENBY: I was logical.

Sir K. WOOD: I venture to think that there is not a great deal of difference between, at any rate, a good many of the views that have been expressed. So far as I am concerned, and so far, I think, as the Government are concerned, any proposal that control should permanently remain in this country would not receive the slightest amount of support on this side of the House. We desire to provide that due protection shall be given to the tenants of this country with as little control as possible. I do not believe that there is any virtue in control as such. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) asked how it was, inasmuch as new houses are not the subject of control, that people say the present measure of control is preventing and
restricting house-building in this country. I will, at any rate, venture to give him a reply. In the past, as I daresay he knows, a great deal of house-building in this country was done by the aid of two people the small house builder and the small house investor who supported him. Those two people played a very big part in, and made a very big contribution to, the housing position in this country as it was before the War. The small man erected the house, and there was then, as I believe there is today, a very large number of people in this country with a small amount, say, 2400 or £500, who desired to invest their money in house property. They could see that it was a tangible security.
That went on freely, but the situation now has changed very much, and one of the reasons for the change is that, instead of these small investors today investing their money in that way, they are afraid of this class of investment and turn to other means of investing their money. Why is that? It is because they have found, far instance, in connection with the Rent Restrictions Act that we are considering this evening, and an extension of which we are passing, that when they advance their money on house property they are restricted and cannot deal with it in the same way as other people who own other classes of property. The consequence is that they are—perhaps unnecessarily—frightened by these restrictions. They say, "We never know what is going to happen." Somehow or other people in Parliament, as they think, have taken an unnatural objection to their investing in house property. It is not that the restrictions are affecting new houses, but the fact that Parliament has embarked on an unnatural, but, no doubt necessary course, as this has been, has undoubtedly been an adverse factor acting on new house—building in this country. It has only been, I think, this year that it could be said that the private builder and, to a large extent, the private investor, are now coming back again into their old combination, and to a large extent are responsible for the considerable increase that has been shown in the rate of house building. So far as the position of the tenants in this country is concerned, they can, under the Government's proposals, sleep quietly in their beds to night. This
Bill will continue their security for another two and a half years, and, if it is a question of new legislation, or of continuing the Measure in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, it will be subject again to the review of Parliament—

Mr. N.MACLEAN: No!

Sir K. WOOD:: Any Member who, if it were not included, desired to call attention to that fact, would10.0 P.M. be able to do so. The tenants also have the assurance that, if conditions are not improved by the end the period of two and a half years, the protection to them would be continued.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that it will be possible to put this Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act later.

Sir K. WOOD: Yes. The Bill has been purposely framed with that in view if the necessity arises.

Mr. MACLEAN: It cannot be amended there.

SirK.WOOD: No.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is the point.

Sir K. WOOD: I venture to think that the proposal of the Government is certainly for better, from the point of view of house building, than the proposal which has been put forward by hon. Members opposite for a very considerable period of control. I myself do not take a pessimistic view at all of the present housing position. At this moment we are building houses at a bigger rate than at any time in the history of this country. I should be the first to say that that obviously is not sufficient—that, having regard to the very great shortage, it by no means meets the situation. Hon. Members opposite have not referred to night to the other side of the housing programme, in which I hope we shall have their assistance, namely, in connection with new methods of construction. There ought to be, and I believe there will be, a great. possibility of dealing with the housing shortage in that connection, and I hope that, coupled with this Bill, the efforts that are now being made in connection with the erection of brick houses, and the fact that the difficulty in connection with the erection of other kinds of houses has been swept away by the
report of Lord Bradbury's Committee— for the working people of this country. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No ! "]—we can con', as I hope they will, but in helping towards the real solution of rent restriction, namely, a much larger

acceleration in the building of new houses for the working people of his country.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes,243;Noes,137

DivisionNo.81.]
AYES.
[10.5p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel
Edmondson, MajorA. J.
Lloyd,Cyril E.(Dudley)


Albery, Irving James
Ellis, R.G.
Loder, J. deV.


Alexander, E.E.(Leyton)
Elveden, Viscount
Lougher, L.


Allen, J. Sandeman(L'pool. W. Derby)
Erskine, Lord(Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C.M.S
Evans, Captain A.(Cardiff, South)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Applin, Colonel R.V.K.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lumley, L.R.


Ashmead-Bartiett, E.
Fairfax, Captain J.G.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F.W.
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch(Inverness)


Atkinson, C.
Fanshawe, CommanderG. D.
Macdonald, R.(Glasgow, Cathcart)


Balfour-,George(Hampstead)
Fermoy, Lord 
McDonnell, ColonelHon. Angus


Balniel, Lord 
Fielden, E.B. 
Macintyre, Ian


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fleming, O.P.
McLean, Major A.


Barclay-Harvey, C.M.
Ford, P.J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Foxcroft, Captain C.T.
Makiits, Brigadier-General E.


Beamish, Captain T.P.H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel
Francis E. Margesson, Capt. D.


Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel
Anthony Mason, Lieut. Col. Glyn K.


Bennett, A.J.
Galbralth, J.F.W.
Meller, R.J.


Bethell, A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, F.B.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bird, E.R.(Yorks, W.R., Skipton)
 Gilmour, Lt. Col.
Rt. Hon. SirJohnMilne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Bird. SirR. B.(Wolverhampton, W.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, S.(Lanark, Lanark)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Grant, J.A
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B.M.


Blundell, F.N.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J.T.C.


Boothby, R.J.G.
Grentell, Edward C.(CityofLondon)
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moreing, Captain A.H.


Bowyer, Capt. C.E.W.
Gunston, Captain D.W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cilve


Brass, Captain W.
Hall, capt. W.DA.(Brecon Rad.)
Nan, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hanbury, C.
Neville, R.J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William CIW
Hannon, PatrickJosephHenry
Newton, SirD. G.C.(Cambridge


Briscoe, Richard George
Harland, A.
Oakley, T.


Brockle bank, C.E.R
Harrison, G.J.C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Brooke, Brigadier-General C.R.I.
Harvey, G.(Lambeth, Kennington)
Perkins, Colonel E.K.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, Major S.E.(Devon, Totnes)
perring, William George


Brown, Maj. D.C.(Nthid, Hexham)
Haslam, Henry C.
peto.(Somerset, Frome)


Brown, Brig. Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hawke, John Anthony
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur


Buckingham, Sir H.
Headlam, Lleut. Colonel C.M.
Preston, William


Bullock, Captain M.
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxfd, Henley)
Raine, W.


Burman, J.B.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V.L.(Bootle)
Ramsden, E


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Heneage, Lieut.-ColonelArthurP.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Cadogan, MajorHon. Edward
Hennnssy Sydney H.
Reid D.D.(CountyDown)


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hennessy, MajorJ. R.G.
Remer, J.R.


Campbell. E.T.
Hennlker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Rentoul, G.S.


Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)
Herbert, S.(York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Rhys, Hon, A,U


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn(Aston)
Hilton, Cecil
Rice, sirFrederick


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hoare, Lt. col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, E,H.G.(Flint)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. sir D.(St. Maryleoone)
Roberts Samuel(Hereford, Herefort]


Chapman, Sir S.
Hohier sir Maid F
Ropner, Major L.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Ruggies Brise, Major E.A.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Holt Captain H.P.
Russell, Alexander West(Tynemouth)


Christie, J.A.
Homan C.W.J.
Salmon, Major I.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hope, Capt. A.O.J.(Warwk, Nun.)
Samuel A M.(Surrey, Farnham)


Clayton. G.C.
Hopkins, J.W.W.
Samuel, Samuel(W'dsworth, Putney)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard, Capt. Hon. D.(Cumb., N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G.K
Hudson, Capt. A.U.M.(Hackney, N.)
savery, S.S.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, R.S.(Cumberland, Whitehn)
Shaw, Lt. Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hume, Sir G.H.
Shaw Capt. w. w.(Wilts, Westby)


Cope, Major William
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E.W.


Couper, J.B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A.N.


Courtauld, MajorJ. S.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, R.W.(Aberdn& Kincdine. C.)


Crooke, J. Smedley(Deritend)
Jacob, A.E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
James, Lieut.-ColonelHon. Cuthbert
Somervllle, A.A(Windsor)


Cunliffe, JosephHerbert
Jephcott, A.R.
Spender clay. Colonel H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, G.W.H.(StokeNewington)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davidson, J.(Hertfd, HemelHempst'd)
Kennedy, A.R.(Preston).
Stanley, Lord(Fylde)


Davies, A.V.(Lancaster, Royton)
Kindersley, Major G.M.
Stanley, Hon. O.F.G.(Westmeland)


Davies, Ma).Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davies, Sir Thomas(Cirencester)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Storry Deans, R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J.Q
stott, Lieut-Colonel W.H.


Drewe, C.
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Stuart,Crichton-,Lord C.
Ward, Lt. Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wolmer, Viscount


Stuart, Hon. J.(MorayandNairn)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W.J.


Sugden, Sir Wilfred
Watson, Sir F.(Pudsey and Otley)
Wood, B.C.(Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Watson, Bt. Hon. W.(Carlisle)
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'geHyde)


Templeton, W.P.
Watts, Dr. T.
Wood, Sir Kingsley(Woolwich, W.)


Thompson, Luke(Sunderland)
Wheler, Major Granville C.H.
Woodcock, Colonel H.C.


Thomson, F.C.(Aberdeen, S.)
White, Lieut. ColonelG. Dalrymple
Worthjngton-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon. S.)
Williams, Com. C.(Devon, Torquay)
Wragg Herbert


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, SirC. H.(Leeds, Central)
Yerburgh, MajorRobertD. T.


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K.P.
Wilson, R.R.(Stafford, Lichfield)



Waddlngton, B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-ColonelGeorge
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Wallace, Captain. E.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Colonel Gibbsand Captain Douglas Hacking.


NOES.


Adamson, W.M.(Stall., Cannock)
Henderson, RightHon. A.(Burnley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A.V.(Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G.H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W.(Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas(Preston)


Baker, J.(Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hudson, J.H.(Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G.(Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William(Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred(Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas(Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Earr, J.
Jones, HenryHaydn(Merioneth)
Slesser, SirHenryH.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan(Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Beckett, John(Gateshead)
Jones, T. I. Mardy(Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben(Bermondsey, Rotherhlthg)


Benn, CaptainWedgwood(Leith)
Kelly, W.T.
Smith, H. B. Lees(Keighley)


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie(Penistone)


Broad, F.A.
Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Bromfield, William
Kenyon, Barnet
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Spencer, George A.(Broxtowe)


Brown, James(AyrandBute)
Lansbury, George
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, JohnJames
Stamford, T.W.


Cape, Thomas
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H.C.
Lindley, F.W.
Sutton, J.E.


Clowes, S.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John(Anglesey)


Cluse, W.S.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G.R.(Wolvorhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)
Thorne, W.(WestHam, Plalstow)


Cove, W.G.
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, JohnJoseph


Davies, Evan(EbbwVale)
Maclean, Neil(Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C.P.


Davies, RhysJohn(Westhoughton)
March, S.
Viant, S.P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maxton, James
Wellhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn(paisley)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Wanie, G.H.


Edwards, JohnH.(Accrington)
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W.M.(Dunlermline)


Fenby, T.D.
Morris, R.H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D.(Rhonddi)


Forrest, W.
Morrison, R.C.(Tottenham, North)
Welsh, J.C.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Wignall, James


Graham, D.M.(Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, JohnHenry
Williams, C,P.(Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Williams, David(Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, A.(NelsonandCoins)
Parkinson, John Allen(Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. h.(Llanelly)


Grenfell, D.R.(Glamorgan)
Pethlck-Lawrence, F.W.
Williams, T.(York, DonValley)


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C.H.(Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T.W.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R.J.(Jarrow)


Guest, J.{York, Hemsworth)
Rees, SirBeddot
Windsor. Walter


Hall, G.H.(MerthyrTydvil)
Richardson, R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Hardle, George D.
Rlley, Ben
Young, Robert(Lancaster, Newton)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Robertson, J.(Lanark, Bothwell)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W.C.(Yo'kt, W.R., Ciland)
Mr. Trovelyan Thomson and Sir


Hayes, JohnHenry
Rose, Frank H.
Godfrey Collins.


Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 1, after the word "and" [" and of Part II "], to insert the words "to postpone the date of expiry."
In the course of the discussion on the Committee stage the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) suggested to me that the Title of the Bill was not properly descriptive of its matter, and that so far as the second part of the Act of 1923 was concerned the Bill was not really one for the prolongation
of the Act but for the postponement of its coming into operation. I told him at first sight that I thought what he was contending for was well founded and that I would consider it further before the Report stage. I have considered it further and I am still of opinion that his objection was correct and I have, therefore, introduced this Amendment to alter the Title so as to make it more properly descriptive of the real purpose of the Bill

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir PATRICK HASTINGS: I should like to ask the Minister of Health one simple question. I say, quite frankly, and I am sure that he will agree with me, that it is important that everyone in this House, and particularly tenants, should be able to understand the simple facts which I am anxious to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman. If I am wrong, I am sure the Minister will be able to correct me in a sentence. I submit that, taking only one example, this Bill is absolutely unintelligible. I propose to read one sentence, which is one of the main sentences in the Bill, and ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be good enough, if I read it correctly, to tell me, and to tell the House, what it means. The words to which I wish to call atten tion—it is only one example of what I think about the Bill—are contained in Clause 1 (3, b),namely:
 after the twenty—fourth June, nineteen hundred and twenty—six.
I take those words to apply to the same words in Section 2, Sub—section (2), of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923. I propose to read to the House, leaving out superfluous words, Sub—section (2) of Section 2 of the principal Act before the Amendment passed in this Bill, and precisely the same words after the Amendment. If anyone can not only understand them, but can have the faintest idea of what they mean, it will be a great relief to me and to hon. Members sitting behind me, whose anxiety is not merely to explain the words to our constituents and to the tenants, but, first of all, to understand them ourselves. The portion of the Act as it stood before the Amendment, leaving out superfluous words, reads
 Where … the landlord of a dwelling—house to which the principal Act applies grants to the tenant a valid lease of the dwelling—house for a term ending at some date after the twenty—fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty—six, being a term of not less than two years the principal Act shall cease to apply.
I think that is a fair summary of the Sub—section, and I think every hon. Member thoroughly understands what that means.[HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear ! "]I am so glad that hon.
Members understand it. May I ask the same hon. Members, whose intellects move so quickly, to allow me to read that Sub section with the Amendment, and if they understand it I shall be delighted
Where … the landlord of a dwelling—house to which the principal Act applies grants to the tenant a valid lease of the dwelling—house for a term ending at some date not earlier than one year after the date fixed at the time at which the lease is granted for the expiration of the principal Act,
then something will happen. What on earth that means, passes my comprehension. I have not heard one single "Hear, hear !" If the point is so simple, we only want to understand it for ourselves, and if anybody understands it, lawyer or layman, landlord or tenant, all I ask is that that hon. Member should explain if not to the House at least to me, because I have not the foggiest notion of what it means

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am puzzled at the contrast between the want of apprehension which the hon. and learned Member displays in this House and the rumours of that quickness of intellect which he is said to display in other places. I confess that I fail to understand what is difficult in this matter, but I will endeavour to explain the meaning and purpose of the original Section and then to indicate to the hon. and learned Gentleman what it is that the arrangement proposes to do. The original Sub section, to which he has referred, was an arrangement under which the tenant might obtain security for a longer period than he would have got if the Act which controls the dwelling house had come to an end, by getting a lease from his landlord which would not provide for a period earlier than one year after the Act came to an end. The Act was to come to an end on the 21st June, 1925. Therefore the agreement between the landlord and the tenant w as to give the tenant a lease of his house enabling him to be certain that he would not be turned out for a whole year after control had come to an end. He knew what the lease was—that when the lease came to an end the house would be so controlled.
Under the present Bill we are proposing to extend the duration of the principal Act. Instead of coming to an end in 1925, it is not to come to an end until 1927. Furthermore, as has been explained in the course of the Debate upon the Bill and again this afternoon, even then, when
that time comes, it may be necessary to extend the control still further by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill for periods of a year at a time. We are in this position. We do not know when? this Act will come to an end. If therefore these agreements are to have any force or any meaning for the tenant, he wants to be sure that the extra term of the period which he gets will be at least one year more than the duration of the Act whatever the duration may be. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would kindly read these words again I think that he will find that they provide a running security, if I may so describe it, for the tenant., that he should have his lease fixed so that he will have security for one year after the expiration of the period. PION. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ! "I

Sir H. SLESSER: After what has been said by the Minister of Health, I do not think that the approving "hear hears" imply any understanding of his words. I was watching to see if any hon. Members were looking at the Bill when they were applauding, but they were not doing so, and the applause was, I may say, emotional and not intellectual. I am in perfect agreement with the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am not even prepared to say that his intentions are not excellent, but I am concerned that we should not pass into law, even at this late hour, words which, I think, are entirely unintelligible. At the risk of monotony I shall read those words again. The proposal is to substitute for the existing provision these words
:
 not earlier than one year after the date fixed at the time at which the lease is granted for the expiration of the principal Act.
Those are the words. Though there might be any amount of applause in this House, it will not get over the fact that you cannot grant a lease for the expiration of an Act. The words do not make sense. The period which the Minister has endeavoured to fix is not earlier than one year after a date. We ask what, date? The answer is:
 the date fixed at the time at which the lease is granted for the expiration of the principal Act. There is no comma, and no indication whatever as to the relation between the lease and the Act. Quite apart from party, the whole House is concerned to
see that legislation makes sense. It may be that members of my own profession do not suffer if some legislations not clear, but so great is our concern for the honour and dignity of this House that we prefer to call attention to the fact that this phrase is unintelligible. The Minister has not explained the meaning of it. He has explained the mischief which he has tried to correct and he has explained what he wanted to do. Perhaps some other right hon. Gentleman will explain what is the meaning of the words:
 at the time at which the lease is granted' for the expiration of the principal Act." 
Until those words are explained, I submit that. the House is about to approve the passage into law of words which are admittedly unintelligible. Every Member is entitled to have explained in unambiguous phrases what the words mean. I hope that., even now, either this Bill will be held up until such time as these. words are made intelligible, or that someone will explain to us what they mean.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I should have thought it was very simple for the hon. and learned Gentleman to read the words as they appear in the Act. As he has challenged someone other than a member of the legal profession to say something, I would say—in an Act of Parliament you never insert punctuation marks—that they mean one year after the date fixed for the expiration of the principal Act, at the time at which the lease is granted. I am certain that if there is any ambiguity, the Minister of Health will have no difficulty in making the matter right, in another place.

Captain BENN: In view of the fact that no legislation of recent years has given rise to so much litigation as the Rent Restrictions Acts, which are the subject of much animadversion from the Judicial Bench, it is surely desirable that the of the Law Officers of the Crown should be present to—night to explain this conundrum. The Minister of Health has charmed, but not on this occasion elucidated. I have read the principal Act and the Amendment, and it seems to me that there is no intelligible meaning that can be attached to the words. The last speaker is mistaken in supposing that Acts of Parliament are not punctuated. They are punctuated, as he
will see on examination. But the House is entitled to a legal opinion in order to avoid making this Bill, like other Acts, the subject of endless litigation and expense in the Courts of the land

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I do not wish to take part in the discussion on the precise meaning of the words to which attention has been drawn by my hon. and learned Friends. No doubt, the Minister will examine them, and if they do not bear the meaning he intends will see that they are altered. But this Bill, with all its sins upon its head, is about to leave the House—no doubt much to the relief of hon. Members—and I rise to explain our attitude towards it and to make a protest against it. It is a mere continuation Measure. It continues the existing law for an arbitrary period of time which we believe to be far too short. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has explained his views. He wants early decontrol. He has pleaded that he can use the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill if it should be found necessary. If that was his object why did he not make this Bill continue for one and a—half years instead of two and a—half years The real reason is that the right hon. Gentleman, in his heart of hearts, believes that in two and a—half years he can dispense with control. That is his view, but we have not had any argument adduced, nor has any information been given to this House, to justify that extraordinary optimism. He has admitted this evening, as he did on the Second Reading, that the present law with regard to rent restriction is defective, and that there are legitimate grievances. But he says, in effect, that this is going to continue for so short a time it is not worth troubling about it. We object to that view. Two and a—half years of grievances is a very substantial period of time to the people suffering from the grievances, and if those grievances exist—and the right hon. Gentleman has admitted them—surely the Government in this Bill ought to have taken steps to introduce remedies.
Our opposition to the Bill is not based merely on the ground that the period of control is too short. We say it does not deal with other problems which should have been considered. No consideration has been given to the present level of
rents. No consideration has been given to the stealthy and surreptitious decontrol which is going on day by day. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry referred to the benefits of the Act he did not tell us that since 1923 houses have been steadily decontrolled, and the rents raised against the tenants, and that tenants are being worried out of houses, if they could not be evicted, in order that these houses might be let at much higher rents or sold.
This Bill, although it does not alter the law by one word, is a landlords' Bill. It is a landlords' Bill because it continues at the present time a level of rents fixed at a period when prices were far higher than they are today. It is a landlords' Bill because it continues for a further two years that process of decontrol which, by the time the Act expires, is going to provide the right hon. Gentleman with an argument for not continuing control any longer. It is true that legislation must be passed now, and, therefore, we du not intend to divide on the Third Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ! "] I see no reason for the cheers of hon. Members on the other side. We would rather have this measure of control than none. We must, therefore, refrain from voting against the Third Reading of the Bill, but in doing so I wish to protest, on behalf of my hon. Friends, at what is a miserable, mean, and shabby Measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "]—two and a half years hence those words will have been proved true—a mean and shabby Measure which, under the guise of fulfilling election pledges, is merely playing into the hands of, and giving a maximum of satisfaction in the circumstances to, the landlords, but the minimum of trouble for the Government

Mr. T. THOMSON: The Minister of Health admitted, in the course of his remarks, that he might have to contemplate some extension of the period of control after the end of the two and a—half years, if his optimistic feelings were not justified by the course of events, and he suggested that he might have to do that by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. He himself admitted that if this Measure were included in such a Bill, it would be impossible to amend it in any form whatever. Earlier in the Debate, he told us that the Act, as it at
present stands, is very incomplete and wants amending. Therefore, I put to him the importance of considering whether it would be wise to seek to extend its duration through the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and whether it would not be necessary to bring in a special Bill in order that the Amendments, which he admits are necessary, could have an opportunity of consideration. May I further say that these Amendments might have been made now if it had not been for the skilful ingenuity of the Government in so drafting their Measure that nothing. beyond an extension of the time was possible by means of Amendment '1 It is the Government's fault, and not the fault of the House, that Amendments have not been possible, and that the defects, which the Minister admits exist, are continued. It is through their wilful action in refusing the House an opportunity of making the necessary Amendments, which many of us desire to be made

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: By leave of the House, may I say, in reply to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson), that if, in two and a—half years' time, he will bring to my notice the considerations which he has just adduced, T will give them my most sympathetic attention?

MERCHANT SHIPPING(INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CON VENTIONS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill that has to do with people who live in steel houses. Unfortunately, the time is very short, but I will try to be as quick as I can, and to describe just the outlines of the Bill, which is already, of course, very well known to the House. It is a Bill, mentioned in the King's Speech, for making the necessary Amendments to the existing law in this country to give effect to three International Conventions, having to do with the sea, which were made in 1920 and 1921. These
Conventions are the result of a series of Conferences of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations. Convention I provides that a seaman's wages shall continue during the period of unemployment due to shipwreck or loss of his ship for a maximum period of two months from the date of the loss. At the present time the law is that the seaman's wage ceases on the loss of his ship, but under this Bill, if he is employed during any period of those two months, then the money earned in such period of employment is deducted. In regard to Convention 2, this provides that no boy under the age of 18 shall be employed as a stoker or a trimmer on board ship. The reasons for that are obvious, as the work in the stokchold of a ship is likely to be detrimental to the health of a boy under 18 years of age. Convention 3 provides for the medical examination of any young persons before they can be certified as suitable to be employed on board ship.
I am not going to trouble the House at this time with very much more, except to say the object of the Bill is to implement these Conventions. The adoption of the Conventions involves the amendment of the law as it stands today. The Conventions have been signed by all the British representatives at the Conference, namely, the representatives of the Government, the representatives of the employers and the representatives of the seamen. So far as I know, there is no opposition on the part of any of the interests concerned. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) brought in the Bill last year, and it has passed through another place in all its stages, and is awaiting the approval of this House. I will content myself with, asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. GOSLING: I do not want to say anything to prevent the Bill going to a Committee, but I am in a little doubt, because the hon. Member in charge of the Bill said it was a Bill that had been arrived at by agreement on both sides. But since that agreement—and I was one of the delegates at Genoa when the matter was discussed—and, in fact, since the matter has left the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), and has been in charge of the present Government, and been in another place, an Amendment has been
put in. In Clause 5 you have, in the expression "ship," brought out of the provisions of the Act most of the vessels that are engaged in inland navigation. It says it
 does not include any tug, dredger, sludge vessel, barge, or other craft,
and so on. If because the conditions of employment are different in those vessels, that has been done, then, I am afraid, the hon. Member has been misled. I think I know how this was—if I may use the word without offence—engineered. It was brought in in another place by the then Chairman of the Port of London Authority. But it was not done by agreement with the men's side at all. It was done without any consultation with them, and if by just saying this word I can keep myself clear to be able to move an Amendment in Committee, I shall be satisfied with doing that. I do not like to be silent and to allow the thing to go through, and to say this was agreed to when the agreement arrived at has been rather violated by the introduction of these words since the reintroduction of this Bill in another place.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Perhaps I may say one word as my hon. Friend has raised the point. I think this is really a point we ought to discuss when we get the Bill in Committee, and I shall be very glad for it to be gone into on its merits there. I do not think the Amendment in the form in which it has been inserted in another place really alters in any way either the spirit or the intention of the Convention. It was considered very carefully there, and the Lord Chancellor did consult me over the matter. I think it was the real intention of this Convention, which used a word in French, the nearest equivalent of which I think in our language would probably be "voyaging on the open sea." What was intended to be covered by this Convention was the seagoing vessels. It was said, I think with some truth, that if you had dredgers or barges which were not going to sea. but were doing their work within the ordinary limits of a port, they were not intended to he covered. A vessel sailing to Gibraltar or Malta is plainly engaged in maritime navigation, and sailing upon the open sea.
However, I think that we can in all probability discuss these details better in Committee. What has been sought to be done was to carry out the real spirit of the Conventions, and to make them applicable to the vessels named in the Bill. That was sought to be done in another place, but I quite agree that when we get into Committee it will be possible to see that we have not gone outside the Convention, and to find the proper words to which reference has been made. I would ask that we might get the Second Reading of this Bill to-night, because if we do not get it the apportionment of Parliamentary time is always difficult, arid what we all want to do is to get the Conventions through.

Mr. SEXTON: I do not propose to say much, because we can deal more fully with this matter in Committee. I just want to say, as an old wind-jammer of many years' experience, that I welcome the introduction of this Bill. Some of us the more welcome it when we think of the old days of shipowners and shipmasters, when every ship was a kingdom in itself, and every captain was a king, and not always a very generous one. The Bill has started on a very adventurous voyage. It has already been shorn of some of its top—hamper. It has succeeded in getting through the doldrums in another place. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be able to get his ship safely into harbour

Mr. J 0 HNSTON: I have no intention of delaying or hampering the Second Reading of this Bill, but I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade has given us an adequate and satisfactory explanation as to why we should exclude the seamen on the tugs, dredgers, sludge vessels, barges, and other crafts from the provisions of this Act. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are endeavouring to draft, a Bill in accordance with the spirit of the Conventions. But, surely, it is outside the spirit of the Conventions to exclude the seamen to whom I have referred. It is outside the spirit of the Conventions to take in a few seamen here and there and apply to them provisions which should be applicable to all seamen. There is another interpolation which so far as I can see appears in this Bill which is not in. the Convention itself. In Clause 1. Subsection (2) we are informed that a shipwrecked seaman may be
deprived of his wages following shipwreck provided the owner can show that the seaman was able to obtain suitable employment on that day. Before whom is the owner to show that suitable employment was available? There is no reference to that in the draft Convention so far as I can see. We ought to have an explanation from the President of the Board of Trade as to why that is being interpolated in the Bill. For long years, as the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) has just said, seamen, if they were shipwrecked, lost their their wages from the moment they were shipwrecked. Many of them lost their outfit and their clothes in addition. They lost their all. Many of them became nervous wrecks as a result of the trials through which they went. They received no compensation. There still is in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, a Section 158, which, if hon. Members would read it, will show how this House only a few years ago regarded these unfortunate men. It said that where the service of the seaman terminates, and so on, by reason of the wreck and loss of a ship, or if his being left, on shore at any place abroad, under a certificate granted as provided by this Act of his unfitness or inability to proceed on the voyage—he might be dumped on a foreign shore. and might have his wages from that day cancelled. All he could get, as far as I can see, was a free passage home under certain other provisions of the Act. Surely for Great Britain, the leading maritime nation of the world, we. should have not a crimping and crabbing of the provisions of the Conventions, but we ought to have these provisions, if possible, enlarged and extended so that all seamen who sail under the British Flag shall be covered by the provisions of this Bill. I think this House should have from the President of the Board of Trade an adequate explanation even before we allow the Bill in its present form to go through

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: As I was in charge of this Bill last year, I am sure the President of the Board of Trade would wish me to say we welcome it and will do all we can in the later stages to facilitate its passage. It may well be
that, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has put to the House, there are some points on which there may be some strong expressions of opinion that as the leading maritime nation we should give a strong lead to other mercantile powers. I am sure he and the House will recognise it is exceedingly difficult in a Bill, the object of which is to ratify a Convention, to deal with any matters extraneous to the Convention. After what happened last year, and the delay which took place because of some small opposition and through the exigencies of Parliamentary procedure the consequent loss of a whole 12 months of the benefit which a crew would get. I am very much hoping that we shall keep the main issue before us. That is to wipe away the reproach to us as the leading maritime nation of the world that three Conventions, one passed in 1920, and two passed in 1921, still remain unratified by the leading maritime nation of the world when all the other nations arc waiting for us to give them a real lead. From that point of view we should do all we can to facilitate the passage of the Bill, while we may give consideration to other points that hon. Members may raise, and which may be dealt with in what, I hope, the President of the Board of Trade will yet consider—an early Bill for amending the Merchant Shipping Acts.

Captain BENN: As representing a constituency which is deeply interested in this Bill I should like to add a word to what my hon. Friends have already said to thank the Government for introducing this Bill. I would like also to gather hope from the words of the President of the Board of Trade, that these matters would be considered on their merits. That I take to mean, and I hope I am right, that the many friends of the Bill, and of some Amendments to the Bill, who are found in all parts of the House, will have an opportunity, free from the tiresome tyranny of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, of expressing their opinion at all stages in the sense they desire

MONEYLENDERS (AMENDMENT)BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope this Bill is going to be allowed to pass. It is not yet Eleven o'clock, and I think I am entitled to make a one—minute speech in moving it. This Bill is urgently required. I do not know the reason why one or two Members have been blocking it. I do not see them in the House at the present time, and I hope, therefore. the House will allow the Bill to pass Second Reading. It is admitted that certain Amendments are required, and they can be put in in Committee. If the Bill is passed a very grave scandal on the life of the people of this country will be removed.

Bill read a Second:time.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That it is expendient that the Bill be commited to a joint Committe of both
Houses of Parliament.—[Commander Eyres Monsen.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to ask whether it is the intention, in setting up this Committee, that it shall he representative of Scotland? I understand this legislation is dealing only with England.

Question put, and greed to.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres ensell]

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.